ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Sports Projects (Nottinghamshire)

Graham Allen: What estimate he has made of the level of revenue and capital funding for sports projects in Nottinghamshire in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: Before answering, on behalf of the whole House may I congratulate the England and Wales cricket team on becoming the No. 1 test playing nation in the world? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was a popular one. I also congratulate our rowing and athletics squads on winning 14 and 17[Official Report, 12 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 5-6MC.] medals respectively at their world championships last weekend, and William Fox-Pitt on a record sixth victory at the Burghley horse trials.
	The figures for the 2011-12 funding period are not yet available, but I am pleased to report that Nu2Sport, in conjunction with the university of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent university and Sport Nottinghamshire, secured a grant of just under £250,000 in national lottery funding from Sport England to help more students participate in sport. Nottingham will also benefit from funding invested throughout the country by the national governing bodies of sport. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the full figures are available.

Graham Allen: We hear a lot about the legacy of the Olympics. Can the Minister reconcile talking up the legacy of the Olympics with the whole sport plans, which will at the same time reduce expenditure across 46 sports by about £70 million, including in deprived constituencies such as mine? Will he look again at the future funding to maintain what we do at the Olympic level?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, certainly. I would need to look at the figure that the hon. Gentleman has produced and understand how he has got to it. One thing that we have used the increase in lottery funding to do is to preserve funding through the whole sport plans. I need to understand exactly what is behind his figure. We have also produced Places People Play, which includes the iconic and inspired
	facility funds that are designed specifically to invest in facilities to draw more people into sport. I hope that any clubs in his constituency that are affected will apply to those funds, but I will certainly look at his figures.

Women’s Football

Karl McCartney: What steps he is taking to promote women’s football.

Hugh Robertson: I spoke at the launch of the Football Association’s new women’s super league in April. In June, I attended a reception at Downing street for the England women’s team ahead of the World cup in Germany. At the junior level, we made strong representations to the FA to increase the age at which girls can play in mixed teams from 11 to 13. I am delighted that that will happen from next year.

Karl McCartney: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating all the teams, especially my own team, Lincoln Ladies, on the successful first season of the FA WSL? Lincoln Ladies’ attendance rose on average by more than 400% compared with the previous year. Does he agree that the first season laid an excellent marker for future seasons and that it highlights the continuing growth of the women’s game in Lincoln and throughout England?

Hugh Robertson: Of course I do. My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that I had the opportunity to meet a number of the Lincoln Ladies players during a visit to the city on 14 June. There is no doubt that the new league has been a fantastic success and I hope it will be a great driver of more women playing football.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister raise with the FA its girls’ talent development programme, which has meant that my constituent, Jaime Gotch, who used to go to the Watford centre, is now left without any support for her very talented football career?

Hugh Robertson: I certainly will. I visited the Watford centre before the election when I was in opposition.

Fiona Mactaggart: It’s closed.

Hugh Robertson: I know; that was my point. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me or directly to the FA, I will see what we can do to help.

Meg Munn: Women and girl’s football is a growing sport and is one of the fastest growing sports among girls. As I am sure the Minister is aware, it is enormously important to have women in coaching and being trained as coaches. What is being done to get more women into coaching?

Hugh Robertson: I am glad to say that there is a very simple answer to that question: the development of St George’s Park, the FA’s new centre of excellence in the midlands. Its specific remit is to drive up the number of coaches, both male and female, across the community game. Many football writers, who have been urging this for a long time, think that it will be the single biggest
	seminal change to English football over the next decade. I hope that it will make a huge contribution to sorting out this situation.

Broadcasting (Commonwealth Games)

Thomas Docherty: Whether he has had discussions with (a) the BBC Trust and (b) Ministers in the Scottish Government about the broadcasting rights for the 2014 Commonwealth games.

Edward Vaizey: We have had no discussions with the BBC Trust or Ministers in the Scottish Government on this issue, which is a matter for the rights holders and broadcasters, but we welcome the recent announcement that the games will be broadcast on BBC television.

Thomas Docherty: I am obviously disappointed that the Government do not think it important that the BBC lives up to its responsibilities to all nations and regions and acts as the host broadcaster. Will he explain why he has had no such meetings? Does he not accept that we are losing millions of pounds of training opportunities through the Government’s failure to act?

Edward Vaizey: The BBC does not always act as host broadcaster for the sports events that it covers. As I say, given that the BBC is covering the Commonwealth games, I am not sure what the issue is.

Local Television

Steve Brine: What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the recommendations of the Shott review into local television; and if he will make a statement.

David Hanson: What recent progress his Department has made on the development of local television.

Jeremy Hunt: Last month I announced that 65 locations in the country could be pioneer locations for a new generation of local TV services, and we will be laying three orders before Parliament before Christmas to make that happen.

Steve Brine: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and for driving forward local TV with such belief; that is all credit to him. May I draw his attention to a bid for a local TV licence that is being put together in my constituency, which places the media and journalist facility at the university of Winchester and Southampton Solent university in Southampton at its heart? Does he agree that if local TV is to work this time around, and the next generation of Dimblebys is to be found, we must draw on the technical expertise within our universities and the students and what they have to offer?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. He of course knows about this as a former journalist. Those at universities have been among the most enthusiastic people about local TV, not least at Birmingham City university, which
	has hosted two events on local TV in the past year. The reason is that they see this as an opportunity to found a new sector in the creative industries, which employ more than 50,000 people in the United States. That makes the opposition of the Labour party all the more extraordinary.

Ivan Lewis: indicated  dissent .

Jeremy Hunt: But the shadow Secretary of State wrote to me in July saying that this was a waste of ministerial time. I hope that he might review that position, because this is a big opportunity for jobs.

David Hanson: May I give the Secretary of State half a cheer for his proposals? The town of Mold in my constituency has been chosen as a potential hub, but it is the same town where a BBC TV and radio studio has closed, in part because of financial pressures. What guarantees can he give that the capital and revenue streams will be there to develop that network of local television services, and that any advertising will not diminish the ability of local print media to have such advertising and make them viable as well?

Jeremy Hunt: All the evidence from other countries shows that having local TV stations actually grows the local advertising markets. I am sure that the Flintshire Chronicle and The Leader will continue to thrive in Mold. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman appearing on Mold TV, but for reasons of consistency we expect the shadow Culture Secretary to boycott his own local TV station.

Martin Vickers: Channel 7, a local TV station based in Immingham in my constituency, is, I believe, the sole surviving local station from the initial batch, and it has been a success due to forging its partnerships with institutions such as the Grimsby institute of further and higher education. People at Channel 7 have asked me to convey an invitation to one of the ministerial team to visit them and benefit from the success they have had. May I pass that invitation on and look forward to a visit?

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that enticing offer. I travelled to Birmingham and Manchester, and tomorrow I am going to Belfast and Glasgow. I will certainly see whether I can put his constituency on the list as well.

Jonathan Edwards: In response to the Secretary of State’s plans for local TV in Wales, a senior BBC source was quoted in The Western Mailas saying that he is
	“an advertisement for the devolution of every aspect of broadcasting policy to Wales without exception”.
	Will he unburden himself and agree to such a sensible proposal?

Jeremy Hunt: Very unusually, this is an issue on which I find myself in disagreement with the BBC. I want to encourage local broadcasting, of course, but broadcasting should remain an issue for the national Government at Westminster.

London Olympics

Nigel Dodds: What estimate he has made of the likely change in the level of participation in sport as a result of the London 2012 Olympics.

Hugh Robertson: Over the past year, we have increased the share of lottery funding for sport across the United Kingdom and invested £135 million in a mass participation legacy programme and more than £100 million to increase competitive sport through the school games. Increasing participation will be a challenge, and it is one that no previous host city has achieved, but it is our aim to deliver on the pledges made at the time of the bid.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome what the Minister has said. I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is going to Belfast tomorrow; I am sure that he will be warmly welcomed there. I hope that he has discussions, along with his colleagues, on the issue of increasing participation in sport across the regions and in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if he could say what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive specifically on increasing participation in Northern Ireland in sport as a result of the Olympics.

Hugh Robertson: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I visited Belfast on 9 March. I visited the university of Belfast and Sport Northern Ireland and saw a number of participation schemes that I thought were being well run and had every chance of increasing participation across the Province. Indeed, it is the first time that I have been there since I was a soldier 20 years previously, and the change in the whole place was remarkable. He absolutely has that commitment and I will do everything possible to help.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Minister agree that in increasing participation in sport post-2012, it is essential that we protect our playing fields?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, I absolutely do, and there is now a really effective triple lock on playing fields: all planning applications have to go before Sport England; under the Localism Bill people will have the opportunity to designate playing fields as local community facilities; and there is now a specific fund, administered by Sport England, for the improvement of local playing fields.

Kate Hoey: The Minister knows that no one measure can increase participation in sport. Does he accept that what has happened in London, and the leadership shown by the Mayor of London in ensuring that money gets down to the grass roots, is crucial? If we really want to increase participation, we all have to work together in partnership across the whole of sport.

Hugh Robertson: I could not agree more, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done in London to bring that about. London is an extremely good example of what can be done at community level
	to meet the policies coming down from Government. Without real inspiration in different areas to meet different needs, we will not achieve that.

Ian Austin: Let me add my congratulations to the sports teams and British sportsmen and women whom the Minister listed earlier.
	What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the decision by his colleagues to withdraw the funding for school sport partnerships, which have led to more than 90% of children doing at least two hours a week of sport in school, compared with less than 25% eight years ago? Is it not the case that sports facilities across the country are being closed, that fees and charges are being increased and that, despite the Olympics, the risk is that the outcome of his Government’s decisions will be fewer youngsters and adults taking part in sport across the UK?

Hugh Robertson: Let me say at the outset that the reason why the funding decisions were taken was to tackle the deficit, which would have had to happen whoever was in power. There is a political argument about the scale and speed of it, but the fact is that there would have been cuts under any Government. To mitigate that, we have increased the amount of money that sport gets through the lottery and put in place a specific mass participation programme under Sport England. I have been watching the matter very carefully, and there is as yet—I do not say it will not happen—no evidence that there are mass closures across the country. There is a dichotomy between local authorities that hold facilities in leisure trusts, which are not affected, and those that hold them directly, where they are under threat. We will watch the situation closely.

Brighton Digital Festival

Caroline Lucas: If he will attend the Brighton digital festival in September 2011.

Edward Vaizey: Very sadly, neither the Secretary of State nor I will be able to attend the festival this month. I must say, it looks absolutely fantastic and we wish it well, and I am delighted that the Arts Council is giving it £50,000.

Caroline Lucas: I am disappointed that the Minister cannot make the festival this time, and I hope very much that he will next year. Will he give a boost to the city’s growing digital sector by using his good offices and those of other Ministers to support a move towards all public sector contracts of less than £100,000 being given to small and medium-sized enterprises, and larger public sector contracts being broken down so that SMEs, particularly in the digital sector, have a much better chance of getting them?

Edward Vaizey: If I am still in this job, I will certainly try to attend next year—and even if I am not, I will try to attend. I will be in Brighton at the beginning of October for the Museums Association conference, at which the hon. Lady is the keynote speaker. I heartily endorse
	what she says, because we must do all we can to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can get Government contracts.

High-speed Broadband Scorecard

Stephen Timms: When he plans to publish the UK high-speed broadband balanced scorecard.

Jeremy Hunt: We published our initial proposals for a broadband scorecard just before Christmas. We are absolutely committed to having an objective way of measuring how to get the best superfast broadband network in Europe, and we will continue work to ensure that we can do that.

Stephen Timms: But the right hon. Gentleman did say, I think, that the scorecard would be published in the summer, and we have not seen it yet. Will it cover progress towards universal broadband as well as high-speed broadband? It has been reported that the 4G spectrum auctions, which should have taken place early this year, are now going to be delayed further beyond their revised date of the beginning of next year. Is that correct, and is he dismayed, as many of us are, by what looks like a yet further delay?

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, as a former broadband Minister, will know that we have committed ourselves to universal broadband coverage, which will be one of the things measured in the broadband scorecard. However, before he criticises this Government’s progress he should show a little humility. He might like to know that the first thing that broadband officials told me was that the amount of money that had been allocated for universal broadband roll-out was half what was necessary.

Alun Cairns: Does the Secretary of State recognise the strength of feeling that exists for a 98% coverage clause in the 4G auction that is to come? Will he urge the mobile operators to think long and hard before launching any legal challenge that would merely delay the process and affect the economy?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very keen to get on with this auction, because it is clear that the high-speed broadband revolution that we need must also be a mobile revolution—we must assume that most people will access the internet through mobile devices going forward. We are looking very carefully at the possibility of increasing the coverage requirement to 97% and will await Ofcom’s findings, which we expect shortly.

Digital Transmitter Sites

Gemma Doyle: What recent discussions he has had with television distribution companies on the variation of digital transmitter sites across the UK.

Edward Vaizey: I meet the main parties of the digital switchover programme
	regularly to review progress. The distribution of digital transmitter sites is part of the digital TV switchover process, which is progressing well and is on track.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the Minister for his correspondence with me on this matter, but the fact remains that following the digital switchover, my constituents who receive their television signal from the Milburn Muir transmitter get an inferior TV service. Will he please commit to looking at ways to incentivise companies to provide an equitable service? Alternatively, will he consider a grant scheme for my constituents, who would have to fork out something in the region of £200 to get the same service?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Lady and I have been in extensive correspondence on this issue, and she is a formidable advocate for her constituents. I hope she will come to the video relay service conference on 15 September. Perhaps we could talk about this issue there and arrange a meeting to discuss it further.

Therese Coffey: I am looking forward to switching from having four channels to having 15 channels to view in two months’ time, when the Tacolneston transmitter switches over. One thing that concerns me, however, is that ITV3 will not be available on the relay transmitter from Aldeburgh, which is a great shame. Licence fee payers should be the ones who choose the channels they receive if they are not to have the full range of services.

Edward Vaizey: I am afraid that about 10% of the population does not get the full range of services, but the core 15 channels. As I have said, that is a commercial issue for the people who operate the transmitters in this country. That issue certainly concerns some Members of Parliament, and if my hon. Friend wishes to join the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and me for a meeting to discuss this further, I would be happy for her to do so.

Broadband (Rural Communities)

Julian Smith: What recent progress his Department has made in delivering broadband to rural communities.

Michael Crockart: What steps he is taking to improve broadband provision for rural communities.

Jeremy Hunt: In August, I announced indicative funding for all parts of the UK for our ambition to have not just universal 2 megabit coverage, but 90% coverage of superfast broadband.

Julian Smith: North Yorkshire is grateful for the Secretary of State’s Department’s support, and we are getting on with our project, but may I press him further on the 4G auction? It seems that the auction is a Treasury as much as an Ofcom issue, and I would be grateful for any update on any discussions that he is having with the Treasury. I believe that we must nail that issue for north Yorkshire to get the broadband that it needs.

Jeremy Hunt: I should first like to congratulate my hon. Friend, because north Yorkshire and Cumbria are two of the regions of the UK that have made most progress—they have pretty much moved to tender stage on the 90% superfast broadband ambition. I have a lot of sympathy with his view on coverage, and we are having many discussions inside the Government about how best to handle that. That matters because on all the projections that we see at the moment, the amount of mobile internet data will triple every year, and over the next four years we expect it to increase twenty-sixfold.

Michael Crockart: The unfortunate truth is that many rural areas, including Kirkliston, South Queensferry and Ratho in my constituency, are still crippled by poor broadband services, with speeds significantly lower than the 2 megabits per second minimum target. Will the Secretary of State update the House on any discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on matching the £68.8 million investment recently announced by his Department?

Jeremy Hunt: We had what can best be described as a rather curmudgeonly response from the Scottish Government about our broadband allocation. That is not a total surprise, but given that the amount of money allocated to Scotland took account of the additional costs of rolling out broadband in sparsely populated rural areas, and that the amount was much greater than it would have been under the Barnett formula, we were expecting a little more enthusiasm. However, now the challenge is on for the Scottish Government to match what the UK Government have contributed, and to ensure that we deliver universal broadband access to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and 90% superfast broadband access as well.

Cathy Jamieson: I accept that the Secretary of State has gone some way to providing resources, including to the Scottish Government, but does he agree that to ensure universal broadband coverage some of the most rural communities will require access to affordable satellite broadband? Will he consider bringing forward some of the unallocated money currently in his budget to operate a pilot project in Scotland—in conjunction, I hope, with the Scottish Government—on that very issue?

Jeremy Hunt: I am a localist. That is why our broadband strategy does not prescribe how local authorities and devolved Administrations meet their targets. However, we have calculated the costs and provided half the money, and we expect them to match-fund. I am pleased to say therefore that in all the areas on which we have had discussions so far there has been a willingness to provide that match funding. If satellite is the right solution in Scotland, we will support that, but we want to leave it to the Scottish Government to come up with the right solution.

Public Service Broadcasting

Tom Brake: What plans he has for the future of public service broadcasting.

Edward Vaizey: We are considering the future of public service broadcasting as part of the Government’s communications review.

Tom Brake: I do not know whether the Minister is a physics graduate, like I am, but does he expect a slimmed-down BBC to maintain excellent science programmes, such as those presented by Professor Brian Cox, which have been credited in part for the 20% increase in the number of students taking physics A-levels?

Edward Vaizey: It is not for me to tell the BBC what programmes it should make, but I know that Brian Cox’s programmes, which I have seen, have been enormously successful. The BBC’s power to make a difference in this area is significant, and I hope now that it will find a charismatic presenter for a history of computer science, so that we can increase interest in computer science education.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister remember when, two years ago at the Edinburgh festival, James Murdoch said that he wanted Sky to replace the BBC as the most trusted broadcaster? He might well recall that. Given the events of the recent weeks and months, can this ministerial team and Government start embracing and supporting the BBC, both at home and abroad, as so many viewers in my constituency do by listening to it?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Edinburgh festival, which reminds me that I should have said how pleased all the festival organisers were with the extensive coverage that the BBC gave them. They were full of praise for it. May I also take this opportunity to praise BBC Radio Oxford, which I praised last night in the House and which incorporated my remarks in its breakfast programme jingle this morning?

Robert Halfon: On public service broadcasting, will my hon. Friend condemn the decision by the BBC to stop broadcasting the Israel Philharmonic orchestra at the Proms? Will he also take this opportunity to condemn those extremists who disrupted the Proms and attacked the orchestra?

Edward Vaizey: I was present at the Israel Philharmonic orchestra’s performance at the Proms. It was an occasion when one realised how wonderful the Proms and the promenaders are. It is salutary to remember that even in 1968, when the orchestra from the USSR was playing at the Proms and the USSR had invaded Czechoslovakia, the music was not disrupted. There should be a separation between art and politics, particularly in this case given the astonishing history of the Israel Philharmonic orchestra, which saved so many Jews from death at the hands of their Nazi oppressors.

Pete Wishart: What representations has the Minister received from Scottish Ministers about setting up a Scottish digital channel, and what resources and support does his Department intend to give to this fantastic cross-party initiative?

Edward Vaizey: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish digital network, I discussed the matter with the Scottish Culture Minister at the Edinburgh festival. I know that she is a strong advocate for it. However, I also know that our plans for local television are as exciting for Scotland as they are for England.

BSkyB

Alex Cunningham: What recent representations he has received on the implications for the broadcasting sector of the decision by News Corporation not to proceed with its proposed acquisition of BSkyB.

Jeremy Hunt: It will not surprise the House to know that I received a number of representations over the News Corp BSkyB bid during its progress and considered them all carefully.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State now agree with the Opposition that one of the lessons of the phone hacking scandal and the attempted takeover of BSkyB is that new, tougher cross-media ownership laws are required in this country and that no one media organisation should have such a concentration of power again?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to look carefully at cross-media ownership laws. I agree with him as well that this needs to be done on a cross-media basis; it is not about the dominance of any individual platform any more. We also need to look at whether the merger rules for media takeovers work as effectively as they might. We will listen very carefully to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson before taking action.

Ivan Lewis: Let me say to the Secretary of State that I may have included the words “Ministers” and “waste of time” in the same sentence, but not in the context of local television. I appeared on Channel M, the example of my local TV station, but the project ended in tears because it was simply not viable.
	Throughout the BSkyB process, the Secretary of State maintained that he could consider only plurality and that allegations about phone hacking and other illegal practices were not covered by the relevant legislation. Is he now willing to work with me and the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to introduce amendments to the current legislation on an all-party basis to include a wider public interest test and to allow regulators to apply a “fit and proper person” test? That would close loopholes in advance of the longer-term reform of media ownership that will come as a result of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Is the Secretary of State willing to work with me and the right hon. Gentleman on an all-party basis to bring forward those amendments?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course I will listen to all representations made, but I do not think that the shadow Culture Secretary quite understands the way the law works. If the bid were re-presented, under the Enterprise Act 2002 it would count as a new bid and, as Secretary of State, I would have the power to refer it to Ofcom on the basis of broadcasting standards, media plurality or,
	indeed, national security, so safeguards exist. However, if what the hon. Gentleman is really trying to say is that Rupert Murdoch and his children are evil and must be stopped at all costs, just wait until he sees “The Godfather”.

Ivan Lewis: I think the Secretary of State should speak for himself on those issues. It is absolutely clear that if there were to be a new bid, the only basis on which he could consider it would be plurality and broadcasting standards. He could not ask regulators to look at the wider public interest, nor could he insist that they apply a “fit and proper person” test. That is why we urgently need action now.
	Let me turn quickly to a related issue. Can the Secretary of State clear up once and for all whether he discussed News Corp’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB with the Prime Minister at any stage during the quasi-judicial process? To be clear: I am not asking whether he consulted the Prime Minister on any decision that he had to make, but whether they discussed it during that period.

Jeremy Hunt: As I have told the shadow Culture Secretary, the decision was mine and mine alone, and I did not consult the Prime Minister about that decision. Not only that, but I consulted Ofcom and got independent advice, which I followed. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that he still does not appreciate that section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, which was passed by his Government, gives Ofcom the duty to ensure that all holders of broadcast licences are fit and proper at all times and the duty to remove them at any time, so these powers exist. We want to strengthen them in specific areas, and we are working hard to ensure that we make the right changes to avoid what happened before happening again.

Human Trafficking

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Government’s policy on human trafficking in respect of major sporting events.

Hugh Robertson: Regular Olympic briefings take place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, me, Home Office Ministers and the Olympic intelligence centre to discuss threats to the games, including human trafficking. Although there is currently no evidence of an increase in human trafficking linked to the games, the Government are aware of the threat, which is real, and will remain vigilant.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for that full response. The danger of modern-day slavery at the Olympics is great. I appreciate that the Government have recognised that in their new strategy on human trafficking, which talks about the intelligence leading up to the games, but can he tell us a little more about how that works?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, of course I can. We have a bespoke Olympics intelligence centre, which looks specifically at intelligence leads surrounding information of all sorts feeding into the Olympics. As my hon. Friend correctly says, there is evidence that hosting world-class sports competitions can, in certain circumstances, lead to an
	increase in human trafficking. As yet there is no hard evidence that that is happening, but the threat remains and we will remain vigilant.

Tessa Jowell: Just to remind the House, today is Paralympics day—a day of celebration up in Trafalgar square of the extraordinary achievements of Paralympians and of achievements to come.
	The Minister will have seen the March 2010 report published by London Councils which examined the potential impact of the games on trafficking. I know that he shares my long-standing concern that the games should be safe for women and that London should be a no-go area for evil exploitation by traffickers. The London Councils report suggested that there was a particular risk that the number of Roma people trafficked for begging would increase. Have there been discussions with the Romanian Government and others to ensure that this risk does not materialise?

Hugh Robertson: That is a good question. I have not myself had discussions with the Romanian Government because the information I receive is channelled through the Olympic intelligence centre. I can give the right hon. Lady my absolute assurance—I believe she will get a security briefing within the next couple of weeks, so she will have the opportunity to ask that question herself—that I, too, will ask that specific question. As I say, there is no hard evidence to date that anything of this sort is occurring. As I said earlier, the threat is there and we will remain vigilant.

Formula 1

Gavin Shuker: What recent representations he has received on broadcasting rights for Formula 1 races.

Hugh Robertson: I regularly receive representations on sports broadcasting—I doubt whether that will surprise anybody—including on Formula 1 races.

Gavin Shuker: The whole House will be aware that Formula 1 and motor sport more generally in this country is a multi-billion pound industry, with household names such as Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Paul di Resta, McLaren-Mercedes and Red Bull effectively becoming great British brands. Following the shameful decision of the BBC to sell out to Sky, may I ask what the Minister will do to protect this industry so that it is not sold out in the same way that the many fans who will have poor-quality coverage for the next decade are being sold out?

Hugh Robertson: The decisions taken by the BBC about how to spend its own sports budget are, of course, matters for the BBC alone. The Government’s remit extends to the free-to-air television regime. Formula 1 has never been on that list. I was the Minister in charge of looking at the matter last time it came up, just after the election. There was no significant pressure at that point to put it on the list. At this time, therefore, it remains a matter for the BBC, which has to decide how to spend its sports budget, but we will, of course, review all these matters when the list is next reviewed in 2013.

Topical Questions

Gregg McClymont: If he will make statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I should like to echo what the shadow Olympics Minister said about today being international Paralympic day. The Paralympics have a special place in our nation’s heart because it started here in Stoke Mandeville in 1948. We want to welcome more than 100 chefs de mission from Paralympic teams to London this week, wish the organisers success and, particularly, wish our brilliant Team GB Paralympian success next year. At the Beijing Olympics, they thrashed Australia; they thrashed America; they thrashed Russia; they thrashed every single country in Europe and came second in the world only to China.

Gregg McClymont: I add my own congratulations to our Paralympians and would like to return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) about why the Scottish Government have not matched the UK Government’s broadband funding? Does the Minister agree that this is a short-sighted decision, which is inimical to Scotland’s long-term prosperity?

Jeremy Hunt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman because all the evidence on economic growth shows that it is the more remote, dispersed communities that benefit most from having a good broadband connection. This can stop villages losing their economic lifeblood; it allows people to work from home; and it helps disadvantaged, elderly and disabled people to gain access to services that they would not otherwise be able to receive. I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to respond positively to the extraordinary generosity of the UK Government and to get Scotland connected.

Karl McCartney: I was pleased to see Members of all parties and of the other place take part in the parliamentary archery competition on Monday afternoon on Speaker’s Green, courtesy of you, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I was certainly all of aquiver that I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), managed to win the competition. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers tell us what plans are in place to ensure that British archery and other less well-known sports receive adequate funding and, perhaps, media coverage in the run-up to and beyond the 2012 Olympics, thus giving Team GB the best chance of medal success across a plethora of events?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I strongly agree that we need to support all Olympic events, which is why we are preserving the funding for the whole United Kingdom elite sport budget for the training of Olympians and Paralympians despite a very difficult spending round. I have been to see our Olympic and Paralympic archers train at Lilleshall, and I know that we all wish every success to gold medallist Dani Brown and bronze medallist Alison Williamson, who are our big medal hopes for next year.

Gloria De Piero: I have asked the United Kingdom national lottery operator, Camelot, to give me a constituency breakdown showing where lottery tickets are purchased, but it has refused to do so. Does the Minister agree that, for reasons of transparency, it is important for such information to be in the public domain, and will he help me to put it there?

John Penrose: It is not quite clear why this information is so important, but I am very happy to try to understand why. The destination of lottery funding has long been readily and transparently available, and can be found in the Library. However, I do not see why there should be a direct correlation between potentially richer constituencies where a large number of lottery tickets are bought, and constituencies that are in more need and receive a large amount of lottery funding. If the hon. Lady can explain why that direct connection is important, I shall of course be delighted to help if I can.

Julian Sturdy: In the light of the digital radio action plan, can the Secretary of State or a Minister assure us that the Government will specifically support local commercial radio stations before the switchover?

Edward Vaizey: Yes, we certainly intend to ensure that the move towards digital radio does not discriminate against local commercial radio stations.

Tom Watson: There is a world of difference between a journalist who bribes a police officer for information and a journalist who gets information from a police officer, freely given. The former corrodes our democracy, while the latter protects it. In that light, is the Secretary of State concerned about the recent arrest of the Guardian journalist Amelia Hill?

Jeremy Hunt: As I know the hon. Gentleman will understand, it would not be right for me to comment on a police matter, but I agree with him that there is an important difference between off-the-record briefing and the payment of money by or to the police in return for information. Journalists must operate within the law, but, as the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee, as we go through this entire process we must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society.

Andrew Stephenson: Pendle Leisure Trust sport development manager Joe Cooney is working closely with Colne football club in helping it to apply for iconic facilities funding for new changing rooms at its stadium, which is currently in a poor state of repair. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that bids are encouraged from other groups in Pendle and east Lancashire?

Hugh Robertson: Part of Sport England’s “places people play” initiative involves investment in inspired and iconic facilities. In a sense my hon. Friend has answered his
	own question: the fact that the club is making the application suggests that the promotion is about right. However, I will certainly ensure that Sport England takes every possible measure—indeed, I know that it has done so—to enable everyone to benefit from this £135 million investment opportunity.

Nigel Dodds: At the last reckoning, some five companies from Northern Ireland have been successful in first-tier contracts with the Olympic Delivery Authority, and some 43 have won contracts with the supply chain of tier 1 contractors. However, there is grave disappointment in the Province about the level of contracts won by Northern Ireland companies, and also about the failure properly to allocate Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland and the other regions. Will the Minister undertake to work with the Northern Ireland authorities and with the Treasury to try to increase the number of contracts won, even in the run-up to next year’s Olympics?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, of course I will. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year I visited a number of the businesses that have won contracts, Ulster Weavers being a good example. As the ODA has to award the contracts on a commercial basis there must be a good value-for-money case, but I will certainly do all that I can.

Duncan Hames: My constituent Bethany Gutcher-Dunn is fascinated by England’s heritage, and is now studying the reign of Henry VIII at Aloeric primary school in Melksham. She has entered into correspondence with Her Majesty the Queen about the prohibitive cost of visiting the historic royal palaces. Will the Minister consider extending his support for the free museum entry policy to enable educational visits to these historic palaces?

John Penrose: The Historic Royal Palaces organisation is very successful at popularising its various buildings around the country and encouraging people to visit them, and I know that it makes every effort to reach out to educational organisations. Unfortunately, if we start to introduce additional subsidies, that would require additional money, and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is not much money available given the awful financial position we inherited. I will, however, be delighted to discuss this matter with him.

Tom Greatrex: I welcome the earlier comments of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics about the state of football governance. When considering the Select Committee’s welcome report, will the Department work with not only the football authorities but Supporters Direct and other football supporters’ organisations to ensure that football supporters have a role in the future governance of football?

Jeremy Hunt: We greatly welcome the Select Committee’s comments, and we will publish our official response in due course. We recognise that now is the time for change in football governance, and one important issue we want to look at is what can be done to boost the role of supporters. I note the Select Committee’s comments on changes to the Financial Services and
	Markets Act 2000 to make it easier and less bureaucratic for supporters to build up stakes in clubs so that they can have real ownership.

Laura Sandys: As the sun is setting earlier every day over the beautiful beaches of Thanet and my seasonal businesses are closing down, what representations will the Department make to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the Daylight Saving Bill and the impact it will have on tourism and jobs?

John Penrose: As I said before, the essential point is that while many people, especially in the tourism industry and in the south of the country, are enthusiastic about this move, it is important that we take the entire country with us. In particular, it is important that we do not seek to impose a situation on, for instance, people and businesses in the north of Scotland unfairly and without their consent. We will therefore take great care not to proceed without the consent of all parts of the UK.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Secretary of State for his recent letter to me regarding tourism ahead of the Olympics. I was concerned, however, that he listed the Lake district as a local treasure of the Wirral, until I realised that the same letter had been sent to all the north-west MPs. So that he can learn a bit more about the geography of north-west England, will he visit one of our actual treasures in the Wirral with me: Port Sunlight village, whose festival in July attracted 20,000 visitors?

Jeremy Hunt: I will be delighted to do so as soon as my diary permits. A key part of our tourism strategy is promoting regional tourism and encouraging people to visit what is on their regional doorstep. It was in that spirit that we sent the hon. Lady that letter.

Don Foster: The position of channels on the television electronic programme guide influences what we watch. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why we allow some EPGs to list American cartoons way above the British content, given that we want our children to watch more UK-originated content than American cartoons?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Position on the EPG will probably be the Government’s single most important lever in protecting our tradition of public service broadcasting. We are actively looking at how to make that situation better, if necessary using legislation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Savings Programme

Thomas Docherty: What progress the House of Commons Commission has made in its savings programme in the financial year to date; and if he will make a statement.

John Thurso: Preliminary estimates for the first quarter of 2011 suggest that we are well on track to achieve the initial savings of some £12 million which were identified this time last year. The HOCC is committed to reducing spending by at least 17% by 2014-15, and the detailed work on that stage of the savings programme is currently under way, with a consultation taking place during the autumn of Members, Members’ staff, House staff and others.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for that answer, and I know that both you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman are committed to the House doing our bit. Has the HOCC had a chance to study the Administration Committee’s report on catering and retail services, and does the hon. Gentleman agree it is vital that we not only raise more revenue where we can but save costs by, perhaps, trying to merge those services from the two Houses?

John Thurso: I have indeed had an opportunity to look at the report, which contains many good proposals. On the two specific points, I can tell the hon. Gentleman, first, that raising income will be a vital part of our future plans. Secondly, on shared services, this already happens in respect of both Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology—PICT—and estate services. I am sure that the authorities of both Houses will be looking to maximise this, as it is a sensible way to save money.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Grand Committees

Nigel Dodds: What recent consideration has been given to the role of the Grand Committees of the House.

David Heath: The Welsh Grand Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee have a valuable contribution to make to the work of the House, and I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will be meeting again in November, following the agreement of the House on Tuesday.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. Given the advent of devolution, opportunities for Members from Northern Ireland—I can speak only for them—are somewhat limited, so it is important that meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee take place. Will he ensure that there are more frequent meetings at which matters of relevance to the Province can be debated in more time than is available on the Floor of the House?

David Heath: I certainly hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what arrangements can be made. Obviously, there are limits to the number of times that any Grand Committee can sensibly meet, but I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Ian Lucas: Earlier this week, my excellent Whip informed me that on 20 October the Welsh Grand Committee will be meeting in my constituency. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it was extremely discourteous of the Government not even to have told me about the meeting and for that information to have been conveyed to me by my Whip rather than by somebody acting on behalf of the Government?

David Heath: I am sure that no discourtesy was intended. Of course the decisions of Grand Committees to meet are presented to the House, and so the hon. Gentleman would be aware of it by that means. I would have thought that any discourtesy was more than outweighed by the convenience to him of having the Grand Committee meet in his constituency.

Parliamentary Questions

Mark Menzies: What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of parliamentary questions for written answer.

David Heath: The average cost to the taxpayer of a question for written answer is estimated at £239. In the financial year 2010-11, a total of 46,825 written answers were published, at an estimated total cost of about £11.2 million.

Mark Menzies: We would all agree that written parliamentary questions are an important way of holding the Government to account, but what steps is the Deputy Leader of the House proposing to take to limit exposure to the public purse? Should hon. Members be in more control of this process?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I really do not think it is for the Government to limit or try to ration the supply of questions, because, as he says, it is very important that hon. Members have that opportunity to hold the Government to account. However, I do think that hon. Members, like other public servants, should consider the impact of their activities on the public purse. It is particularly important to recognise that the right to table questions belongs to hon. Members, and hon. Members alone.

Helen Jones: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that if he is to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to
	“increase the power of Parliament”,
	he should be worrying less about the quantity of questions and more about the quality of the answers? What is he going to do to ensure that Ministers give full and timely responses to Members, and that they end the increasing practice of giving holding answers to named day questions and transferring orals at very little notice? Or is this going to go the way of other prime ministerial pledges, such as those for more free votes on Bill Committees and text updates on the progress of Bills?

David Heath: The hon. Lady has a very short memory span if she really thinks that this Government are performing worse than the Government of whom she was a member. I recall that many times her Government were quite incapable of providing timely, or indeed
	adequate, responses to questions. We always try very hard within the Departments to make sure that people get their questions answered properly and on time. If Departments fall short of those ideals, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are very happy to chase up those Departments to see whether we can improve the performance. However, I have to say that I do not think the performance is lacking at the moment.

Lobbying (Transparency)

Stephen Phillips: What steps he is taking to increase the transparency of the lobbying of hon. Members.

David Heath: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform announced on 18 January, the Government remain committed to creating a statutory register of lobbyists and are working towards developing proposals for that register. The Government hope to hold the consultation exercise later this year before bringing forward any necessary legislation in due course.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the erosion of trust among the public in politics and politicians over the past few years, will he ensure that that process proceeds as quickly as possible and tell the House precisely when the register will be in place?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I entirely agree with him. This is a priority issue and we need such a degree of transparency in the arrangements for lobbyists. As I said, we have a consultation exercise and it would be wrong for me to prejudge it, but it is certainly our hope and intention that we will be in a position to introduce legislation on this matter in the next Session of Parliament, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Minister.

House of Commons Reform

Graham Allen: When he plans to implement the remaining recommendations of the House of Commons Reform Committee’s report “Rebuilding the House”.

George Young: This Government successfully implemented the recommendation to establish a Backbench Business Committee, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed. The majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than Government. The Government will be bringing forward a Green Paper on intelligence and security later this year in which we will make initial proposals on how to reform the Intelligence and Security Committee. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to establishing a House business committee in 2013.

Graham Allen: I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on the swift way in which they brought before the House for decision the
	Wright Committee proposals on the election of Select Committee Chairs by the whole House and the election of Select Committee members by their parties as well as on the speedy creation of the Backbench Business Committee. Will they sustain this great record by bringing forward the pledge to create a proper business committee for this House so that we in this Chamber control the business in future rather than the Government we are meant to be holding to account?

George Young: I am happy to repeat the assurance I have already given. It is in the coalition agreement that we are committed to establishing a House business committee in 2013. We look forward to wide consultations with the hon. Gentleman and others about the best way of delivering on that commitment.

Westminster Hall

Philip Hollobone: If he will take steps to encourage Secretaries of State to participate in debates in Westminster Hall pertaining to their Department.

George Young: Westminster Hall debates are an important mechanism for holding the Government to account. Secretaries of State do participate in debates in Westminster Hall, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did recently.

Philip Hollobone: May I make the Leader of the House aware that the Backbench Business Committee is keen to allocate as many days to Backbench business in Westminster Hall as he will give the Committee? That task would be made easier were he to encourage his fellow Secretaries of State to attend, listen to and respond to those debates.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have no ownership of the days in Westminster Hall—that falls between the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee—but I take to heart what he has said. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who attends Cabinet, will be speaking in a debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday.

Peter Bone: Following on from that, if Secretaries of State attended Westminster Hall, perhaps Monday afternoon could be opened up for Westminster Hall debates, and the general debates we used to have in this Chamber on defence and Europe could be held there?

George Young: That is a helpful suggestion from my hon. Friend. He will know that the Procedure Committee is at the moment undertaking an inquiry into the calendar. Whether or not we open up Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon is a proposition that my hon. Friend could usefully share with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who chairs that Committee.

Ministerial Statements

Pat Glass: What assessment he has made of the process for using ministerial statements to make major Government announcements.

Iain McKenzie: What assessment he has made of the process for using ministerial statements to make major Government announcements.

David Heath: So far this Session, there have been 139 oral ministerial statements and more than 1,500 written ministerial statements made to the House. My assessment is that this Government have a much better record than the previous Government.

Pat Glass: The right hon. Gentleman has something of a reputation as a parliamentary reformer. Is he not concerned that that reputation is now under threat given his churlish and I have to say uncharacteristic response to the Procedure Committee regarding ministerial statements?

David Heath: I presume that the hon. Lady is referring to the response from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can remember not a single occasion on which he has even hinted at churlishness, let alone expressed it in response to a Select Committee. Of course we look carefully at what is proposed by Select Committees, and there will be times when we do not entirely agree with them for very good reasons, but that does not mean that we do not respect what they say, while being prepared to argue our case in due course when relevant matters are debated in the Chamber.

Iain McKenzie: Why is the hon. Gentleman so against using Westminster Hall to ease the burden on this Chamber and allow us fully to scrutinise the misguided legislation that his Government are pushing through the House?

David Heath: I am not sure that I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman. He is a new Member of the House and I hope he will not consider it patronising when I say that he may not know why Westminster Hall sittings were first proposed, which was to allow for non-legislative and non-contentious business to be taken in a parallel Chamber while the House was sitting. It was not meant to create impossible dilemmas for Members in having to attend two important venues at the same time. Having said that, if we can make better use of Westminster Hall we are certainly open to doing so. If we can find other ways of reducing the pressures on this Chamber then it is better that we do so. The biggest difficulty that we have is the huge appetite that the House understandably has for hearing Ministers make statements and its proper appetite for scrutinising legislation fully and properly.

E-petitions

Andrew Stephenson: What plans he has to assess the effectiveness of the e-petitions initiative.

David Heath: The Leader of the House’s office is constantly monitoring the effectiveness of the e-petitions site. Following its launch, the site now hosts more than 6,500 petitions, which have received more than 1.5 million signatures. This unprecedented interest in the site is a useful indicator of its effectiveness. For the first time, the e-petitions website is not just graffiti, but offers the public an effective route for engaging with Parliament.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer—I was going to ask him about the overall visitor numbers to the site and the number of petitions already hosted on there. Will he comment on the decision of the Backbench Business Committee about the most popular two petitions’ not being discussed until we reconvene in October?

David Heath: I think it would be entirely improper for me to answer on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, but let me make it clear that we have provided a way for the public to engage with Parliament. What the petitioners want, presumably, is for the topic they have raised either to be dealt with effectively by the Government or to be debated in due course by the House when the opportunity arises. The idea that when a petition reached the threshold there would be an immediate debate is not the purpose of the site, but it
	does mean that proper consideration is given to whether the matter has been debated or will be debated in another form or whether the Government have changed their policy to meet the concerns, which may be the case in relation to at least one of the petitions that has already reached the required threshold.

Fiona Mactaggart: But does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail, which says that this amounts to an e-petition con? The Government said to the public, “If 100,000 of you sign one of these petitions, there’ll be a debate.” What discussion did the Government have with the Backbench Business Committee about how the time for those debates would be allocated?

David Heath: May I caution the hon. Lady, first against reading the Daily Mail , and secondly against agreeing with what it says? The Government have never said that when a petition reaches the threshold it will have an automatic right of debate. It will be considered with a view to seeing whether the matter raised has already been debated or is already going to be debated in a different context or whether the request has already been met by the Government. If there is then a need to debate something that the public have registered as an interest, the Backbench Business Committee will respond to that request. That seems to me an entirely proper way of doing things and it is a huge improvement on the old No. 10 petition site on which the petitions went precisely nowhere.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 12 September will be as follows:
	Monday 12 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
	Tuesday 13 September—Opposition Day [20th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 14 September—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 15 September—Motion relating to food security and famine prevention in Africa, followed by general debate on human rights in the Indian subcontinent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 10 October will include:
	Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 1).

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply, and I welcome him and Members on both sides of the House back from a busy summer.
	As this Sunday will mark the 10th anniversary of the 11 September attacks, I am sure that the whole House will wish to remember all those who lost their lives, including the 66 British citizens. Our thoughts are with them and their families.
	The inquiry on the recent riots will produce an interim report in November. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will provide time for it to be debated? Can we be told how many police officers’ jobs could be saved by not spending £25 million on a delayed poll for costly police commissioners—just, it seems, to placate the Liberal Democrats?
	We welcome the opportunity that e-petitions will give the public to get things debated in Parliament, but the Leader of the House will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, says that there are quite a few problems with that. Will he allocate more time for those and other Back-Bench matters to be debated?
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that the autumn statement is when the Chancellor will finally announce plan B, because plan A clearly is not working? The Government’s growth forecasts will have to be downgraded yet again, consumer confidence has never been lower and the head of the International Monetary Fund has just warned countries to adapt their austerity programmes by taking steps to improve growth, but the Chancellor is not listening. Indeed, the only thing he seems keen to do is abolish the 50p tax rate. Does not that send a clear message to hard-pressed families—that this Government are more interested in millionaires than they are in middle England?
	As we have seen this week, despite its famous pause, the Health and Social Care Bill has failed to win the confidence of those working in the NHS. Meanwhile, more patients are waiting longer for operations, and yesterday the Prime Minister was completely unable to explain why. Is it because attention is being diverted elsewhere?
	On that subject, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on reports that the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has considered selling off St. Mary’s hospital in London—the place where penicillin was discovered—for property speculation? It seems that it went as far as to start a tendering process involving six architects. How much NHS cash did that cost?
	Something else that is not safe in the Government’s hands is our countryside. After the forests sell-off fiasco, we now have the planning punch up. It takes a special talent to make a sworn enemy of the National Trust, but calling critics “nihilist” and “semi-hysterical” was not very clever, was it? When can we expect a statement on the further revisions to that guidance, which are now inevitable?
	Yesterday, a delegation from Bombardier came to the House to plead with the Government to reconsider their decision to award the Thameslink train contract to Germany instead of Derby. The Government’s refusal once again to listen, even though they have now admitted that they can reopen the process, has angered Derby city council. Its Conservative leader, Philip Hickson, was blunt:
	“I do not think they have grasped the widespread anger… the Government have simply got things wrong”.
	Finally, in recent months the Prime Minister’s strategy chief, Mr Steve Hilton, has proposed scrapping maternity leave and health and safety laws, closing jobcentres and replacing Government press officers with bloggers—there could be an opening there for the Leader of the House—all ideas that have been slapped down by No. 10. This week it is reported that Mr Hilton secretly asked a QC to advise on how to challenge new employment rights for temporary workers being introduced by the Business Secretary. The Business Secretary was distinctly unimpressed. A source in his Department said:
	“Vince makes decisions on this policy… not Steve Hilton”.
	A Lib Dem observed:
	“Hilton is just a renegade.”
	I had thought that Mr Hilton was the Prime Minister’s chief special adviser, but when I pressed No. 10 on this I was told that the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. Could we be told how much this legal freelancing cost and who exactly Mr Hilton works for? He seems to come up with so many bad ideas, so may we have a statement from the Prime Minister listing his good ideas? I am sure that that would appeal to you, Mr Speaker, because it would not take very long.

George Young: May I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome back, which is reciprocated? He clearly spent the summer recess further honing his skills of performance at the Dispatch Box, and we had another sparkling example this morning.
	With regard to 9/11, he may know that there will be a commemorative service at Grosvenor square tomorrow, at which the Government will be represented, which will provide an appropriate opportunity to remember the
	UK citizens who died in that tragedy. On the riots, we need an appropriate opportunity to discuss the aftermath. The Government have established a number of groups to look at some of the implications, and I know that the House will want to revert to that subject in due course.
	There will be an opportunity on Monday, when we debate the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, to consider the Government amendment to postpone the elections for police and crime commissioners until next November, and I am sure that he will want in principle to support the idea of the electoral accountability of the commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are not quite clear why the Labour party is so frightened of having elections.
	On e-petitions, I have regular discussions with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and am of course happy to have further discussions with her so that we can make e-petitions a success. I was pleased to see in the press notice that the Committee put out yesterday that it thinks that
	“the e-petitions site is a very welcome initiative.”
	I want to work with her to ensure that this really takes root.
	On the autumn statement, I would have thought that the one thing that had become absolutely clear during the summer recess is that those Governments who did not take a firm grip of the fiscal situation ran the risk of losing market confidence and then paying a very high price to regain it. One of the things the coalition Government have done is avoid the loss of market confidence by taking firm action last year. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go down the route of plan B, he runs the risk of losing market confidence in the same way other European countries have done.
	On the question of tax, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the last Budget and the next one, around 25 million taxpayers will benefit from the increase in personal allowances and over 1 million people will have been taken out of tax entirely.
	On waiting lists, I followed the exchange yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions. Overall there has been very little change in waiting times since the general election. In one case, that of in-patients, waiting lists have gone up, and in the case of out-patients they have gone down, but overall there has been a huge increase in the number of people being treated, thanks to the extra resources we have put into the national health service, which Labour would have denied it.
	On planning, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a document out for consultation, the national policy framework consultation, which ends next month. In the meantime, discussions are being held with the National Trust and others. He will have read the article by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which made it absolutely clear where we stand on planning.
	On Bombardier, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the tender process was initiated and designed by his Government. We used the criteria they set out to assess the tender, and on those criteria it would clearly benefit passengers and taxpayers to allocate the tender to Siemens. I was pleased to see that some 2,000 jobs will be created in this country by Siemens doing part of the work here.
	On Steve Hilton, I am happy to say that he is a fellow cyclist, and therefore I am normally happy to defend what he says, but at the end of the day I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is Ministers who make policy, not special advisers.

Greg Knight: Can the Leader of the House tell us why in the near future we are to go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back by one hour, thereby plunging parts of the country into darkness by mid-afternoon? Can we have a statement on what the Government intend to do to make better use of daylight hours? If, as I suspect, the only opponents of change are a handful of Scots, should not they be told, “Look, you’ve got your own Parliament, if you don’t like it we’ll give you the power to set your own time zone”?

George Young: My right hon. Friend will know that the issue is the subject of a private Member’s Bill, and I personally have form on it, in that I supported a private Member’s Bill in a previous Parliament, proposing reform in that direction. I am not sure whether he was in Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport questions, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) raised the same issue, but in response the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), spoke on behalf of the Government in advocating a slightly more cautious approach than that advocated by my right hon. Friend.

Natascha Engel: The Government launched the e-petitions website on the last day before the summer recess, with little consultation, debate or agreement by the House. All of us warmly welcome the e-petitions initiative, and there is clearly a public demand for it, but, although the Government have raised public expectations, they have passed responsibility for what to do with that expectation to the Backbench Business Committee.
	We are delighted to be involved with the initiative, and we very much want to ensure that it is a success, but we want to make it work properly and meaningfully. The problem—and I address this point in part to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—is that we cannot schedule for debate subjects raised by e-petitions unless the Government give us time to do so. Will the Leader of the House therefore meet not just me but the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), to discuss allocating extra time specifically to debate e-petitions in the short term, and to look at options such as setting up a dedicated e-petitions committee in the long term?

George Young: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning about e-petitions, and for making it clear that she wants the new e-petitions website to be a successful way for people to trigger debates in Parliament. We were in fact delivering a coalition agreement in going ahead with the website, which is an improvement on the No. 10 website, in that it links into the democratic process instead of ending simply at No. 10.
	I am conscious that over recent weeks and months we have not been able to allocate to the Backbench Business Committee as much time as the hon. Lady would like,
	but that is due in part to the way in which the legislative programme impacts on the parliamentary Session. I very much hope that in the weeks and months ahead it will be possible to allocate more time to the Backbench Business Committee, and to give it the headroom that it needs to accommodate debates about e-petitions.
	Two e-petitions have so far gone through the threshold, and in one case, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in response to an oral question, the Government have responded. On Hillsborough, we have made all the papers available from the Cabinet Office to the independent panel, and we have made it clear that we have no objection to them going into the public domain, so it may be that on Hillsborough the petitioners have achieved what they wanted.
	On the e-petition concerning riots, somebody may present themselves on Tuesday to the hon. Lady’s salon, and I hope that in due course it might then be possible to debate the other one that has gone through the threshold.

Priti Patel: In light of the strong interest in Parliament and from the public about all matters European, will my right hon. Friend consider making Government time available for a full debate about Europe and about the repatriation of powers to Britain?

George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate, which I think she had yesterday in Westminster Hall, on precisely that subject. We did discuss at some length the European Union Bill, when there was extensive debate about the repatriation of powers, and there are fairly regular debates, thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee, on European-related issues. I cannot at this stage promise a full debate about the matters that she has raised, but I hope that the House will have an opportunity from time to time to listen to her views on Europe.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2138, which stands in my name and the names of a number of hon. Members?
	[That this House notes that those in Fallowfield applying for bar staff posts at Vodka Revolution, Wilmslow Road are required to work for a full day for no pay under the practice of trying out and are promised that they will be paid if appointed, then are not appointed; believes this practice to be unethical and possibly illegal; and further believes that both potential employees and customers of Vodka Revolution, Wilmslow Road should be made aware of its policy on non-payment of those who work a trial day and are not subsequently employed.]
	The motion describes how the Vodka Revolution drinking den in my constituency has the corrupt practice of telling job applicants that they should work for a day and will be paid if they are appointed, but then does not appoint them. It thereby has a stream of free labour. Will he condemn this corrupt practice by these swindlers, and will he ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to investigate these disgraceful activities?

George Young: I am sorry to hear about what is happening in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Of course I deplore any exploitation of labour of the
	type that he has described. I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see whether any effective enforcement action can be taken to stop this undesirable practice.

Bob Russell: I encourage the Leader of the House to find time for a full debate in this Chamber on cutting the higher rate of income tax. If we are all in this together, where is the fairness to the rest of society in ensuring that Wayne Rooney gets an extra half a million pounds a year?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that issues relating to taxation are matters for the Chancellor at the Budget, and are therefore usually matters for the Finance Bill. He may have heard at Treasury questions on Tuesday the exchange in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the 50% rate was temporary and subject to a review by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to see how much revenue it raises. That review will not be completed until early next year. I know that my right hon. Friend will take the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) into account, along with others, before he comes to his Budget judgment.

Luciana Berger: Today is the launch of the It’s Liverpool, I’m Liverpool campaign, which shows why the city is such a vibrant and exciting place to live, work and study. It is also the friendliest city in the country, according to a recent travellers’ survey. Will the Leader of the House join me in backing the campaign, and can we have a debate on how the Government can support great British cities such as Liverpool?

George Young: I endorse what the hon. Lady said about Liverpool. In a former Administration, along with my right hon. Friend Lord Heseltine, I was part of an initiative to assist Liverpool in the difficult time it went through after the riots. I applaud her campaign and will see what more can be done by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to assist the regeneration that is under way.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: As the Leader of the House is fully aware, the ongoing saga over village greens and the upgrading of footpaths to bridle paths is not only costing the country a massive amount of money, but causing legal hurdles that go a long way back. In Somerset, there is a 22-year waiting list to try to get these matters through. Can we please have time in this Chamber to discuss the ramifications, costs, complexity and legal ambiguities of the way in which people, with no user evidence, get bridle paths and village greens put into planning applications right across the United Kingdom, such as in Bristol where it has caused problems?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the problems in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I suspect that they may be replicated elsewhere. I will certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
	for Communities and Local Government to see whether there is a simpler way of resolving it than the way he has just outlined.

John Cryer: Can we have a full statement on what compensation is available for businesses and organisations affected by the riots and the looting? We have had a few hints, including from the Prime Minister, but a number of businesses, including some in my constituency, face a pretty insecure future because of the looting. Can we have a full statement so that we can question the relevant Minister?

George Young: Rather than a statement, I think that what we want is practical assistance for the businesses that have been affected in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He will know that a number of funds have been set up with the specific objective of assisting firms that are in difficulties after the riots. I will draw the attention of the Home Secretary to what he has just said and see whether we can get some practical assistance to the firms that are suffering in his patch.

Christopher Pincher: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the e-petition initiative, but can he arrange for a statement to describe how the paper-based petitions signed by more than 100,000 people that call for a debate on High Speed 2 can be qualified as an e-petition, so that the issue might be debated in this Chamber and so that the many thousands of people who perhaps do not have access to the internet do not feel disfranchised?

George Young: That is primarily a matter for the Backbench Business Committee, but my understanding is that if somebody goes along on a Tuesday morning and says that they are speaking on behalf of a petition, it will be neutral whether the 100,000 signatures are on an e-petition or an ink-and-pen petition. I am sure that the process is neutral, but it does require somebody to be present on a Tuesday morning to place the bid.

Natascha Engel: indicated assent.

George Young: I am happy to see the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee nodding in assent at the principle of the equality of treatment that I have enunciated.

Lisa Nandy: The House will know that 18 October marks anti-slavery day. In light of the huge public concern about modern-day slavery and, in particular, the fact that more than 735,000 people in this country have recently called on the Government to implement a system of guardianship for child trafficking victims, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an important and appropriate occasion for Ministers to come before the House, respond to the petition and set out their position on child trafficking?

George Young: The Government are firmly opposed to child trafficking. I will certainly contact the Home Secretary to see whether we need to make yet further progress. We have had debates on anti-slavery days
	in previous years that have been well attended and well supported. The Backbench Business Committee might like to consider such a debate as an option for October.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Flight Lieutenant Jon Egging, the RAF Red Arrows pilot who sadly lost his life after the air show in Bournemouth on 20 August? Rather than eject from his stricken aircraft, he was able to manoeuvre it away from a built-up area—an action that probably cost him his life. He will be missed by his family, his friends, the RAF community and indeed the nation.

George Young: I am sure that the whole House will associate itself with the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid to Jon Egging, who sadly lost his life a few weeks ago. In addition to his work for the Red Arrows, he saw active service in Afghanistan, which I think should also be remembered.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House set the Bombardier decision in context? There seems to be no apparent manufacturing plan or strategy for this country. Manufacturing is still vital to our well-being and future, but there is no sign that this Government understand that a long-term strategy for manufacturing is essential.

George Young: I dispute what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He may have seen the evidence given by the Transport Secretary yesterday. It was the criteria set by the previous Government that led to this conclusion. The Secretary for State for Business, Innovation and Skills is now looking at the whole design of tender documents to see whether they can be in any way adjusted so that the sorts of considerations that the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken into account can be taken into account, perhaps in the way that other countries seem to be able to do.

Julian Lewis: The privately owned port of Liverpool received more than £20 million of public money from this country and Europe to develop a cruise liner terminal, with the explicit provision that cruises should not start or end there, but only call there. It now proposes to repay a quarter of this sum over 15 years if the provision that it cannot have a turnaround facility is lifted. That would adversely affect the port of Southampton. May we have a statement from a Transport Minister on what seems to be a calculated case of unfair competition now that it has been revealed that Liverpool city council planned from the outset to get the port built and then renege on the condition on which it was being done?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of the port of Southampton. He will know that a consultation exercise is currently being carried out by the Department for Transport on the proposal to allow turnaround cruises, to which he has just referred. The consultation closes on 15 September. If he wants to respond, his views will be taken into account along with those of other respondents.

Tom Blenkinsop: During the summer, the Department for Work and Pensions sneaked out direction 23 on the operation of crisis loans. It specifically excludes any claims by parents to help towards the purchase of school uniforms and simple school equipment such as pencils and pencil cases. Was that discussed with the Department for Education, and what is the view of the Leader of the House?

George Young: I think that I am right in saying that crisis loans cannot be used for school uniforms, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Kris Hopkins: On 30 September we will see the start of the 2011 Ilkley literary festival. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. May we have a debate on the positive impact of such highly successful festivals in bringing the pleasure of reading to young people?

George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the House’s attention to this. I hope that he might submit an entry to the festival so that his work can be considered along with that of others. I applaud the work of his constituents, and his own work, in taking steps to promote and drive up standards of literacy in this country.

Paul Goggins: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an urgent statement from the Housing Minister on the consequences for social housing tenants of the Government’s new rules on under-occupancy? In Manchester on 1 April 2013, 14,000 families will either have to find a smaller home or pay up to £18 a week more towards the cost of their rent. As a highly regarded former Housing Minister himself, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not only unjust but unworkable.

George Young: I have looked at the copy of Inside Housing where the survey that the right hon. Gentleman carried out in his constituency was reported and given some prominence, and I read the article. I will convey his concerns to the Housing Minister so that he can be aware of the possible impact of the change in the rules and the introduction of the cap and see whether any additional measures are necessary on top of the ones we have already put in place.

Andrew Percy: In 2010, 27,500 crimes were committed by EU nationals. In response to a parliamentary question, it emerged that only 1,400 of those were sent home, with many having agreed to go. Is it not time that we had a debate not only on the free movement of labour but on how we, as a country, treat foreign nationals who come to this country and commit crimes and whom we allow to stay living in this country?

George Young: I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has taken steps and we are now increasing the number of people
	repatriated after committing crimes. However, I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the Minister’s attention to see whether there is further action that we might take.

Barry Gardiner: After months of campaigning, only two of the big six energy companies are still maintaining the practice of cold sales on the doorstep. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that Parliament can put real pressure on E.ON UK and Scottish Power, which are being so recalcitrant over this important issue?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the profile of this issue. I will certainly see what action can be taken further to discourage the sort of cold-selling tactics that he has outlined, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to write to him.

Gavin Barwell: Croydon college in my constituency has formed a partnership with the university of Sussex and is looking for accreditation as a university centre so that young people from across south London can study for a good degree, while living at home, for fees much lower than most universities are charging. May we have a debate on what more we can do to ensure that young people from deprived backgrounds continue to have access to university?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is appalling that of the 80,000 pupils eligible for free school meals, only 40 went to Oxbridge. We are committed to enabling more people from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds to get to university by raising the maintenance grant, introducing a new national scholarship programme, and making the graduate repayment scheme much more progressive. On top of that, we are writing to sixth-formers to draw attention to the financial support that is made available to students. I hope that we can improve on the figures that I mentioned.

John Spellar: Yesterday the Prime Minister told us that the extra cost of moving the election of police commissioners to November would be £25 million, yet on Tuesday, Lord McNally, in a reply to Lord Grocott, said that the cost of the alternative vote referendum, held on the same day as other elections across wide areas of the country, was £89 million—and that is without the cost that falls on the Electoral Commission. May we have a statement to clarify the real cost of this ridiculous November election and whether it will be borne by central Government and not fall on hard-pressed local councils?

George Young: The election for police and crime commissioners is England-only, whereas the other referendum was nationwide. The £25 million figure is the correct one. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the cost of this will not come out of the police budget.

Bob Blackman: Last month, I had the privilege of joining the Metropolitan police on active patrol, and that increased my admiration, which was already great, for the sterling work that the police force does on a day-to-basis to keep us safe. May we have a statement on the impact on the Metropolitan
	police of the work that has had to be done since the riots? My understanding is that they have been doing constant 12-hour shifts with no rest days and all leave cancelled. The bill for that has come to some £62 million already, and the impact on police morale is dramatic. It is essential that we ensure that that money is paid for by the Government and not by London council tax payers, and that we lessen the load on the Metropolitan police.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that a Select Committee inquiry into the riots is going on; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave evidence to it today. We have made it clear that we will support the police regarding the additional costs they face to ensure that front-line services are not hit. I will pursue with the Home Secretary the specific issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned of the impact on London.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Leader of the House will know that today the Deputy Prime Minister slipped out a written ministerial statement on the establishment of a commission on the West Lothian question; this was presumably to pre-empt the private Member’s Bill that will be debated tomorrow. Given the importance of this issue for Members across the House and in all parts of the UK, may we have an oral statement on the Government’s intentions and thoughts behind that commission rather than leaving it to some kind of backroom deal between the Government and a rebellious and recalcitrant Back Bencher with a private Member’s Bill? This is an important issue for all of us and I hope that the Leader of the House can do something about it.

George Young: Written ministerial statements are not slipped out; they are put on the Order Paper and they are in the public domain for everyone to see. This one delivers on a commitment of the coalition Government to establish a commission to look at the West Lothian question, and it should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking it forward. If he looks at the WMS, he will see the timetable envisaged by my right hon. Friend in announcing its membership and terms of reference, as well as the time scale in which it will report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might feel minded to give evidence to the commission when it is set up.

Matthew Offord: Given that local authorities are currently preparing their electoral registers for the forthcoming year, will the Government make a statement to address the problem of individuals who make multiple applications at different addresses by registering at a property they own but at which they do not reside, even when the property is occupied by others who are legitimately registered?

George Young: It is an offence to provide false information to electoral returning officers, and if that happens I hope they would pursue it. As my hon. Friend will know, we are introducing individual electoral registration, which will reduce the opportunity for fraud because people will have to provide some evidence of
	identity before they are added to the register. I hope that that will reduce the sort of practices to which he refers.

Clive Efford: Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), we know that the moving of the elections of police commissioners to November is going to cost an enormous sum of money. May we have a statement on how the Government reached the decision to make this amendment to the proposal in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill? We are told that that was done to appease Liberal Democrat councillors. If that is how the Government are making decisions and wasting public money, is it not a matter that should be discussed on the Floor of the House?

George Young: Of course it is. That is why the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill that will be debated on Monday.

Henry Smith: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that this year the Royal Mint is striking a commemorative coin to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible, yet, unlike many other commemorative coins, it will not be available in general circulation. Obviously there are many different and varied religious faiths, but the Bible’s publication represents a significant point in the history of the English-speaking world. Can representations be made from the Government to the Royal Mint?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I will raise this with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I suspect has overall responsibility for it, and ask him to write to my hon. Friend with a response to his representations about making the coin legal tender.

Andrew Miller: You are aware, Mr Speaker, that sometimes in this House wheels grind extremely slowly, but I was delighted to see that action had been taken on an early-day motion that I tabled in July 1996 followed by a number of letters, including to your good self. Will the Leader of the House congratulate those involved, including Bob Hughes, who is now in the House of Lords, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), Mr Speaker and all those involved on getting a commemorative plaque for Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall? It is absolutely right that we commemorate the visit to this place of the greatest statesman of our time.

George Young: It sounds to me that that was a matter for the House rather than the Government, but the gestation period does seem to have been extremely long.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Given the successful roll-out of free schools, would it not be opportune for the House to discuss the free school programme shortly?

George Young: I welcome the fact that within a relatively short time some 24 free schools are up and running, given that the legislation only hit the statute book in July last year. That compares favourably with
	city technology colleges and academies, and many more free schools are in the pipeline. I hope that there will be opportunities to take the debate forward, perhaps in Westminster Hall, so that we can tell more people about the success of free schools. Some of them have been established in the teeth of local resistance.

Julie Hilling: As President Obama promised that Palestine would be a new member of the United Nations by this September, may we have a debate on Palestine’s application for membership before the UK casts its vote, so that we can show our overwhelming support for a yes vote?

George Young: I understand that there was a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday on precisely that matter, so I do not think it would necessarily be the best use of time to have yet another debate when we have already had one this week.

Robert Halfon: May we have a statement about equal rights for parents? Two Harlow residents, Mr Colin Riches and Mr Neil Colley, have been affected by the inequality in the law which means that fathers do not have the same custody rights as mothers. They have started an e-petition to get the matter looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rules can be deeply unfair for families?

George Young: I know from my own constituency cases that many parents feel that the courts have acted against their best interest in decisions about the allocation of responsibility for children. At the end of the day it is a matter for the courts, but I will raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor the question of whether we need to look again at the legislation.

Dave Watts: Mr Broughton, one of my constituents, worked all his life until he had a stroke. He now suffers from angina, blocked arteries, heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney failure, arthritis, diabetes and other illnesses, yet when his assessment was done he was found to be ready for work. May we have a debate and discussion on why there is such a shambles in the Government’s medical assessments?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is an opportunity to appeal against work assessments, and that we have instituted one review and another is under way to examine all the processes and ensure that we get them right. I am sure the chairman of the review process will take on board the comments that he has just made.

Neil Carmichael: Many of my constituents are very irritated with banking charges, chiefly because they are usually applied when they are in difficulties. They are also concerned about the length of time that it takes cheques to clear. Can we discuss these issues in due course, especially in the light of the Vickers report, which is imminent?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement to introducing stronger consumer protection, including measures to end unfair banking and financial transaction charges. That is being taken forward in a
	review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury and, in July, they published the evidence that they had called for.
	On cheques clearing faster, my hon. Friend will know that we now have instant banking, with money transfers taking place almost instantaneously. However, following the decision that cheques will not be withdrawn, the Payments Council is considering the options for speeding up cheque payments, which I hope will deal with the issue that he raises.

Si�n James: Is the Leader of the House aware of the problem of telephone cold-calling that offers same-day loans? It appears to have overtaken loan sharking in parts of my constituency and to be targeting those who have lost their jobs or who are not able to raise loans through the normal channels of the banking system. Will he issue a statement on the matter?

George Young: I am sorry to hear about the practice that the hon. Lady refers to. I will draw it to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who has responsibility for consumer protection, and ask him to write to her outlining the steps that the Government believe can be taken to stop that practice.

Andrew Stephenson: During the past year I have met two teachers in Pendle who have been assaulted while at work and, across the UK, 44 teachers have had to be rushed to hospital in the past year for serious injuries resulting from violence. Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on school discipline?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that every day, some 900 pupils are excluded from school for the type of behaviour to which he refers. He may have seen the speech recently made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education setting out steps to restoring discipline in schools, including removing the requirement that teachers should keep a record of each time they use physical restraint, overhauling the rules on physical contact to make it clear that schools should not have a no-touch policy and stopping the requirement for teachers to give 24 hours’ notice before issuing a detention. I hope that that will begin to address the problem that my hon. Friend describes.

Ian Lavery: The Leader of the House will be fully aware that the Palestinian authorities are applying for membership of the UN later this month. Will the Government make a statement fully supporting the Palestinian people in their efforts to become a member of the UN?

George Young: Again, I have to say that on Tuesday there was a debate in Westminster Hall on UN membership of a Palestinian state, in which the Minister who replied will have set out the Government’s position. I do not think another debate so soon after that one would be the best use of parliamentary time.

Philip Hollobone: Everyone wants the e-petitions scheme to be a success, but according to today’s Order Paper the Backbench Business Committee
	has only five days to allocate in the six months between now and the end of the Session, at the end of March 2012. Does the Leader of the House realise that if the scheme is to be a success, he simply needs to allocate more days?

George Young: I have said on an earlier occasion that whereas we are committed to 35 Backbench Business Committee days in a normal Session, because this Session is longer and will run on until next spring there will be more than 35. I also said in response to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Committee, that we hope in the next few weeks and months to be able to allocate more days than we have been able to in the past few weeks and months. As the bulk of the legislative programme passes through the House, that will free up more time for the Backbench Business Committee.

Jim McGovern: May we have a debate on the subject of Government support for the computer games industry? As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, calls for more Government support, not only from the industry itself but from Committees of the House, are continuing to increase. Such a debate would allow us to discuss ways of improving support, for example tax incentives and increasing the scope of the small firms research and development tax scheme, which would help companies in my constituency go from strength to strength.

George Young: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is an industry in which this country has a competitive advantage, with many of the market leaders. He may like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment, so that he can make his case and then listen to the steps that the Government are already taking to assist that innovative industry.

Peter Bone: The Government are taking us back to the time of Wilberforce and should be congratulated. Then, mass petitioning was how the public influenced Parliament, and now e-petitions will be. However, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on e-petitions? There is misunderstanding of how the system is working. The Backbench Business Committee did consider e-petitions this week, but not a single Member was there at our public session to promote any e-petition.

George Young: My hon. Friend has performed a service in reminding everybody that in addition to a petition getting 100,000 signatures, somebody needs to go along on a Tuesday morning on behalf of the 100,000 petitioners. That may not have been fully understood. I suspect that by next Tuesday it will have been, and that Members may present themselves and ask for a debate on the two subjects in question.

Graham Jones: May we have a debate on the alternative vote? It appears that having lost the referendum, the Government seem to be sneaking it in by the back door for the election of police and crime commissioners.

George Young: We will have a debate on the matter on Monday when we debate the very Bill that introduces police and crime commissioners. I do not understand this idea that we are using the back door, because it is in the Bill. There is nothing underhand about it at all; it is all in the public domain.

Alun Cairns: The deficit reduction plan is a key priority for the Government. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the progress that has been made? Does he accept that history is extremely effective in contributing to such a debate? Will he time the debate so that it comes out after the political memoirs?

George Young: There is a lot of advice floating around on how one reduces the deficit, but I thought that the previous Chancellor put it well in his memoirs when he said that Labour had no credible policy. Nothing has changed since he made that particular pronouncement.

Ian Murray: Dynamic Advertising in my constituency is threatened with closure due to the loss of a £90,000 contract with the Highways Agency. That was a result of a Government moratorium on spending in those departments. How can the Government promote a jobs and growth agenda by putting such small businesses out of business? May we have an urgent debate on flatlining growth and the consequences for the small business sector?

George Young: Of course, I am sorry to hear of any loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but he should recognise that even if his party had won the last election, it would have had to make difficult decisions on public expenditure. There is no guarantee at all that, if his party had won the election, the Highways Agency would have been able to continue spending at the level that had been planned.

Martin Vickers: Despite recent media coverage, planning law has always had a presumption in favour of development. However, economic development in my constituency is being stifled by Natural England, which seems to presume against development. This matter cannot wait for the current consultation and any changes, so may we have an urgent debate on it?

George Young: As a former planning Minister, I have some familiarity with the planning system. In 1990, the system was changed to a presumption in favour of the plan in order to introduce certainty into the system, and I believe that that remains the case.
	What comes out of the recent debate in the press is the importance of local authorities having a local plan, so that there is some certainty on which areas are designated for development and which are not. The allegation is that if there is no plan, there will be a free-for-all, but that is simply not the case. Authorities must continue to abide by the national policy framework, which gives specific protection to the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Although I cannot find time for such a debate, I would welcome one in order to put to bed some of the myths that are flying around.

Andrew Love: Following on from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen early-day motion 2135, which is signed by 60 Members from both sides of the House, and which calls on the Government to support Palestine’s membership of the UN?
	[That this House recalls the target set by President Obama last year of welcoming  ‘ a new member of the United Nations - an independe nt sovereign state of Palestine’  by September 2011, a target also endorsed by the EU and the Quartet; notes that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and EU have all reported that Palestine is ready for statehood; recalls that Palestinian negotiators entered talks with Israel and offered substantial concessions; regrets that talks broke down beca use of Prime Minister Netanyahu’ s refusal to extend even a partial freeze on illegal settlement-building; further notes that Palestinians have recognised Israel since 1993 despite Israel's refusal to recognise a Palestinian state; further notes that 122 countries with n early 90 per cent. of the world’ s population now recognised Palestine and even among Israelis 48 per cent. support recognition and only 41 per cent. oppose; and concludes that the way forward is to recognise an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and support its admission to the UN because this will be the most effective guarantor of a resumption of negotiations and will also be the best protector of the rights not only of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but also of Palestinians living in Israel and of Palestinian refugees abroad.]
	The Leader of the House mentioned earlier an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, in which the Government Minister said that the Government reserved their position on the question of Palestinian membership. This matter is being dealt with by the UN later this month, so it is of some urgency. May we have an urgent debate or a statement so that the Government can take the temperature of the House on the need to support Palestine’s membership?

George Young: The Government took the temperature of the House in that debate. I suspect that if there were another debate, the answer from the Minister would be the same. There is an opportunity on 25 October at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions to raise that issue again, and I hope the hon. Gentleman takes it.

Albert Owen: May I probe the Leader of the House once more for a debate in Government time, or indeed a statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on the massive hike in energy prices—gas and electricity—for every household in the country? I welcome this and the previous Government’s social tariffs, but they have been wiped out by the massive increases. Five of the six last increases were in double digits. May we have a statement? The Prime Minister has said that he wants to curb excessive price increases, so may we have an opportunity for the Government to make their position clear?

George Young: I hope that there will be exactly such an opportunity next Wednesday, when we debate the Energy Bill.

Grahame Morris: May we have a statement or an urgent debate on access to cancer services? I understand that the Department of Health published a report on its website on 19 August that contained some specific recommendations. Such a debate would be opportune, given that out of 28 cancer networks, the North of England Cancer Network figures worst in terms of access, and has the seventh highest incidence of newly diagnosed cancers—Yorkshire is 27th. It would be useful if we could have a statement or debate on that.

George Young: The Government’s view is that those who are recommended by their general practitioner to have a scan for cancer should have it as quickly as possible, and that any subsequent treatment should also take place as quickly as possible. I shall raise with the Secretary of State for Health the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman outlines and will ask my right hon. Friend to write to him.

Bill Esterson: The Government’s latest plans to reorganise the coastguard accepts the importance of local knowledge in retaining 24-hour coastguard stations. The closures of Crosby in my constituency and of Clyde leave the whole north-west of England and west of Scotland coastlines without a single coastguard station. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider the closures at Crosby and elsewhere before it is too late, because of the importance of local knowledge?

George Young: There will be an opportunity a week today for the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Transport, who will be at this Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman can ask my right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to consider that proposition.

Cathy Jamieson: Is the Leader of the House aware that this week is the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire in the Western Sahara? Will he consult Ministers and seek time for a statement or debate on the UK’s position on resolving that conflict, and on how the Sahrawi can see justice sooner rather than later, rather than wait another 20 years?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern and I am grateful to her for raising it. I shall ask the Foreign Secretary to write to her to respond to her question to see whether we can make some progress on this important issue.

Nicholas Dakin: In July, an answer to a written question made it very clear that officials in the Department for Education should not use Hotmail addresses to contact schools that were going for academy status. However, a press report last month said that that was happening. May we have a statement on what is actually going on?

George Young: There will be an opportunity on Monday 17 October, but that seems a little far away, so I will ask the Secretary of State for Education to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that matter.

Pat Glass: The Leader of the House responded to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) by referring him to a speech by the Secretary of State for Education. The Leader of the House spoke of the formal recording of restraint of, and use of force against, pupils in schools. He is clearly not aware that the Secretary of State for Education made a written statement to the House on Monday in which he made it clear that he no longer requires schools formally to record the use of restraint and force against pupils in schools. Clearly, one hand of the Government does not know what is happening on the other. May we have an urgent debate, so that we can know the Government’s position on the use of restraint and force against pupils in schools?

George Young: As I said a few moments ago, my understanding is that the Secretary of State has removed the requirement that teachers should keep a record of each time they use physical restraint on pupils as part of the initiative to rebalance discipline in the class, and to give teachers more authority. The Secretary of State will have seen this exchange, and if by any chance I have not set out the position accurately, I know that he will write to the hon. Lady.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the earlier exchange on Backbench Business Committee time, the Leader of the House will be aware that a huge number of Select Committee reports, including a Procedure Committee report, must be debated in the Chamber. Will he ensure that if additional time is found, it will also be made available for Select Committees?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liaison Committee has its own quota of time for debates, which sits alongside the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. His remarks should
	therefore be addressed to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who allocates debates of Select Committee reports.

Diana Johnson: Last week, I spent two days with Hull Churches Home from Hospital Service, a wonderful organisation that provides support to patients, families and carers. May we have a debate in Government time on the role of such organisations, and on how we can secure their support during the chaos of the NHS reforms?

George Young: I hope that the extra resources that the Government are putting into the NHS will mean that the more dramatic scenario that the hon. Lady paints will not take place. I would welcome such a debate, and perhaps she should like to apply for a debate on the Adjournment so that we can hear more about the heroic work that is being carried out.

Gregg McClymont: May we have a Government statement on the status of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ change plan? A year after the spending review, the 500 staff in the Cumbernauld HMRC office remain in the dark about the impact of HMRC cuts on their jobs.

George Young: There was an opportunity on Tuesday to ask Treasury Ministers about the future of the staff at Cumbernauld, but I will raise with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that issue, and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Speaker: I must thank the Leader of the House and point out to colleagues that in 44 minutes consumed by Back Benchers in business questions, 51 had the opportunity to question and receive an answer from the Leader of the House. I thank him and all colleagues for their extreme succinctness and self-discipline.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Liam Fox: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. In any conflict, no matter what the reason for our country’s involvement and no matter how difficult the circumstances, what separates us from our adversaries are the values with which we prosecute it and the ethics that guide our actions. To represent Britain, in war as well as in peace, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life. When those values are transgressed, it is vital that we get to the bottom of what has happened, are open about the issues and their causes, ensure that what reparations we can make are made and do all that we can to prevent it from happening again. Only in that way can we ensure that those values hold firm in how we think of ourselves and in how others perceive us.
	I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir William Gage as chairman of the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. I am grateful to Sir William and his team, who have produced a report that is sober, focused and detailed. Above all, I believe it to be both fair and balanced. It is, however, a painful and difficult read. As the report sets out:
	“Baha Mousa was subject to violent and cowardly abuse and assaults by British Servicemen whose job it was to guard him and treat him humanely”.
	That was the primary cause of his death. The inquiry was rightly set up in 2008 by the previous Government with the intent of shining a spotlight on the events surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and to provide the most definitive account possible in the circumstances. It does that comprehensively. What happened to Baha Mousa and his fellow detainees in September 2003 was deplorable, shocking and shameful. The Ministry of Defence and the Army have previously made a full apology to the family of Baha Mousa and to his fellow detainees and have paid compensation to them.
	We can take some limited comfort that incidents like this are extremely rare, but we cannot be satisfied by that. Given the seriousness of this case, there is a series of questions that I have asked myself and that other Members will ask too. Among these are: who was responsible and what happened to them as a consequence? What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence? Do we have the right protection in place today in Afghanistan? And, of course, how will the Government respond to the recommendations made in the report? On responsibility, the report makes clear the extent of the failings of individuals, the MOD and the armed forces at the time and in earlier years. In addition to the shocking displays of brutality for which individuals were responsible, it is also clear that there were serious failings in command and discipline in 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for the prisoner-handling process, and sadly, too, there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse. However, it must be acknowledged that a small number behaved with both integrity and courage in reporting what they had witnessed. They are examples of how others should have behaved.
	Wider than the battalion, there were also deficiencies in policies, orders and training relating to detention at that time. The chairman noted that there was inadequate doctrine on prisoner handling and a “systemic failure” that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abusive techniques put in place by the Heath Government to be lost over the years. The report also confirms that the Army was underprepared for the task of handling civilian detainees, having expected after the end of war-fighting to provide humanitarian aid rather than become involved in counter-insurgency activities.
	Since this incident in 2003, six different Defence Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box. I am sure that they all regret that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of what happened and that even now the refusal of some involved to tell the whole truth means that it has not been possible to establish the full extent of the culpability of individuals. Their behaviour is a matter for their own consciences, but others must take responsibility for the wider failures and deficiencies, and this report does not mean that our investigations of mistreatment of detainees are over. The evidence from the inquiry will now be reviewed to see whether more can be done to bring those responsible to justice. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment in the House on specific individuals and their role in this appalling episode.
	I have asked the Chief of the General Staff, where individuals are still serving, to consider what action is necessary to ensure that the Army’s ethical standards are upheld. That is occurring through the chain of command as we speak. The investigations of the Iraq historic allegations team, which started work last November, are now well under way and are revealing evidence of some concern. It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions, if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify that.
	Since 2003, action taken by the MOD and the Army to address failings as they were identified has touched every aspect of the prisoner-handling system, from policy and doctrine to ground-level directives, as well as training and oversight. The changes wrought have been fundamental. The Army Inspector’s report in 2010, validated by an independent expert adviser, is one example of the detailed scrutiny applied to the training and doctrine for handling detainees. I assure the House that there is a commitment to continuous improvement at all levels inside and outside the armed forces.
	As the report acknowledges, further positive changes have been made as a result of matters that emerged from evidence heard during this inquiry’s final module—module 4—which was a thorough scrutiny of our current detention policies, practices and training. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I take a close personal interest in detention matters in Afghanistan, and I am confident that our approach to detention there has improved markedly since the period rightly criticised in this report. However, we are in no way complacent about the issues identified by Sir William, and I can inform the House that I am accepting in principle all his recommendations with one reservation. It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly, in appropriate circumstances, the intelligence that can save lives. I am afraid that I cannot accept the recommendation that we institute a blanket ban, during tactical questioning, on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques.
	I share some of Sir William’s concerns, however, so I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to ensure that that approach is used only by defined people in defined circumstances.
	Between 2003 and 2008, 179 British personnel were killed in Iraq serving their country, and many more returned injured. In autumn 2003, 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment faced an immensely difficult challenge as it attempted to bring law and order to a large area that had been subject to a brutally oppressive regime for many years. As Sir William acknowledges, the issues addressed in his report
	“need to be understood in the operational context in which they occurred: the tempo of operations; the poor state of the local civilian infrastructure; a daily threat to life from both civilian unrest and an increasing insurgency; the deaths of fellow service personnel and incessant oppressive heat. In combination these factors made huge demands on soldiers serving in Iraq in 2003.”
	There are few of us sitting in the comfort of the House of Commons who can claim to understand what that must have been like. However, the vast majority of armed forces personnel faced these same challenges and did not behave in the way outlined in this report. They represent the fine ethical values found day in and day out in our armed forces, and we must not allow the unspeakable actions of a very few to damage the reputation of the whole.
	I want to make it clear that Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war. His death occurred while he was a detainee in British custody. It was avoidable and preventable, and there can be no excuses. There is no place in our armed forces for the mistreatment of detainees, and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up. If any serviceman or woman, no matter the colour of uniform that they wear, is found to have betrayed the values this country stands for and the standards that we hold dear, they will be held to account. Ultimately, whatever the circumstances, rules or regulations, people know the difference between right and wrong. We will not allow the behaviour of individuals who cross that line to taint the reputation of the armed forces, of which the British people are rightly proud. I commend this statement to the House.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for a strong statement. The whole House will welcome the way in which he is personally dealing with this difficult matter. I also welcome his courtesy in this morning allowing me early sight of the 1,400-page report into this horrific incident. It is a shocking episode, from which we must learn serious and lasting lessons. We all feel profound regret at the loss of Mr Baha Mousa’s life in British Army custody. His death in itself is tragic; that it appears that there was a cover-up afterwards compounds that tragedy. It is essential that our armed forces take responsibility for all actions committed during conflict. Our strength relies not only on our firepower, but on the standards and ethics that we uphold and on which we pride ourselves. This incident is a brutal violation of those standards.
	Like the Secretary of State, I want to make it clear that although the report is damning about the actions of some in the Army in 2003, it is not a reflection of our
	armed forces in general. It is important that those in our forces hear that we remain proud of their bravery and professionalism, whether they are the 100,000 soldiers who previously served in Iraq in the recent past or those in Afghanistan or Libya operations today. All too many among their number have lost their lives or been injured to have their reputations attacked in that way. In Afghanistan, it is essential not only that our forces know that we are proud of their behaviour, but that Afghan civilians hear it loudly, too.
	I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir William Gage and his inquiry team for their report, which is both forensic and frightening. It now seems clear that perhaps as many as two dozen members of the Army, including some in the chain of command, knew about the 93 injuries inflicted during those 36 hellish hours. The Secretary of State has outlined the details of the events, but it is deeply worrying that it now seems clear that there was a failure in the Army’s justice system, including in the court martial and the chain of command, and that incomplete assurances were given to Ministers.
	It is right that politicians should avoid interfering in the criminal justice system in general and in military justice processes specifically, but that is sustainable only where the processes work and are demonstrated to be working. The report finds that multiple assaults took place in a confined space, including by senior NCOs, and that there was a
	“loss of discipline and lack of moral courage”
	to report the abuse. In accepting today’s recommendations, it is crucial that the Government take forward the proposal that those service personnel who reported abuse or who make complaints against their peers about the mistreatment of captured personnel should be afforded protection.
	The report raises some serious questions; I wish to address just three, one of which the Secretary of State has already anticipated. He has stated that he accepts all but one of the 73 recommendations. He intends to retain the right to exercise the harsh approach in tactical questioning. There will be concerns in the House and elsewhere about that, so can he share further with the House the details as to why he wishes to retain the ability to enforce the harsh approach?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned this in passing, but back in 1972, Ted Heath banned the use of the five techniques used in Northern Ireland during internment. Those techniques returned, despite being prohibited, albeit not banned, in the way that Prime Minister Heath had anticipated. The report suggests that legislation is not needed to ban those five techniques. However, will the Secretary of State look further at whether there will be an early opportunity to change armed forces legislation through the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently in their lordships’ House, to implement any parts of the report that would require legislative change? I am sure that he agrees that if legislative change were needed, it would be wrong to wait five years for the next armed forces Bill.
	Finally, although the Secretary of State is right that we should not name individuals on the Floor of the House today, the report finds that individuals did not give full and accurate evidence about what happened and that there was a refusal to reveal identities. Previously, soldiers were given exemption from prosecution during
	this process. However, in addition to fresh Army disciplinary procedures that are currently being undertaken, will fresh legal processes now be initiated in the light of today’s report? Those named in the report surely cannot hide from justice behind their silence or their evasion in the court martial process, or be protected by a calculated cover-up by their peers in the Army or a failure to act in the Army’s chain of command.
	In conclusion, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is compulsory that UK forces should continue to behave in a way that is alien to our foes. When our forces have to detain someone, that detainee is both in our custody and in our care. There is strong support on this side of the House for the report and the recommendations, and for the Government’s reaction to it. However, the consequence of the report must be that never again should anyone be subject to such brutality and lose their life because they are in British custody.

Liam Fox: I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his response and for the way in which he phrased it. He is quite right that the report in no way reflects on the general behaviour of our armed forces; indeed, the whole reason why we are discussing this case is that it was a shocking deviation from the normal standards of behaviour that we have seen from our armed forces. He is correct that a number of individuals are still serving. We are looking at the evidence in detail—it is obviously a very large report—and as I have said, the chain of command is looking at how those individuals still in the armed forces might be treated, although I expect a number of suspensions today.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the harsh approach to questioning and why we should adopt it. First, I should say to the House that the so-called harsh approach involves a short burst of shouting—defined as a short, sharp shock—to bring a captured person back to the realisation of their situation. It is not a violent technique, but it has produced information that has led to both civilian and military lives being saved. To deprive our armed forces of techniques that can make them safer and protect the population both here and abroad would be wrong.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we needed a change to the law in respect of the five techniques that were outlawed by the Heath Government back in 1972. My understanding is that we do not—they are absolutely banned, as is currently made clear in training—but I will look to see whether doing that would reinforce the position and whether our legal experts believe it to be necessary.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about exemptions from prosecution based on evidence, let me be clear that there was an exemption from prosecution based on an individual’s own evidence, not an exemption from prosecution based on the evidence of others that came out in the inquiry. Both military and civilian prosecuting authorities will be looking closely at the evidence to see whether it is possible to bring more of those involved to justice.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for the content of his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it. I
	agree completely with what he said, including his reticence about the banning of non-physical harsh methodology. This incident was a dreadful stain on our very fine armed forces, and I welcome his comments about the continued efforts to pursue those who still evade responsibility for their appalling behaviour.
	There are two areas that I want to ask the Secretary of State about. As with the Aitken report, this incident has again exposed the problems with corporate memory, which has come up in other areas, such as the loss of the Hercules and the coroner’s inquiry into that. What ongoing work, as I know that some work has been done, is the right hon. Gentleman doing to try to improve—no organisation can be perfect—this issue of corporate memory in the Ministry of Defence? What are he and his Ministers doing to continue to show an interest in detention facilities? No matter what rules and regulations are in force, if the top of the chain of command and Ministers themselves are not constantly vigilant in overseeing from the top the methods being used, the facilities provided and how they are being run, there will be lapses. Are the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers continuing to be vigilant in respect of our facilities and how they are being used in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Liam Fox: The answer to the final question is emphatically yes. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have recently inspected detention facilities in Afghanistan. We also have a rigorous system of reporting in place where every allegation is reported, recorded and investigated, which is a huge difference from what happened back in 2003. If I may say so, the Ministry of Defence strategic detention policy that the right hon. Gentleman published when he was Secretary of State is one of the ways in which we are codifying policy to ensure that corporate memory is not lost. The procedures for improvements in training, the very clear delineation of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and the writing down of these training materials are the means by which, I hope, these dreadful and almost unbelievable lapses in corporate memory will not be allowed to happen again.

Kris Hopkins: This is a dark day for the British Army. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the criminals who were responsible for this should be brought before the courts so that we can secure the good name of Her Majesty’s forces, which are made up of good, honourable people—men and women—who have been let down by a few thugs and the cowardliness of those who have baulked justice?

Liam Fox: If I may, I will disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do not believe that this is a dark day for the Army; it is a dark day for a small number of individuals who have damaged the Army’s reputation for high ethical conduct. The vast majority of the British Army behaves in a way in which the whole House could be utterly proud. My hon. Friend is right, however, that those involved need to be pursued, that justice needs to be done and that we need to see what evidence comes from the report. Where new evidence is brought to light, we need to try to break through this wall of silence—this misguided sense of loyalty—that prevents wrongdoing from being properly addressed.

Thomas Docherty: It is fair to say that the whole House commends the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for their continued vigilance on this issue, but will he assure us that all the individuals who are either found to be guilty or refuse to co-operate will be stripped of their Army pensions?

Liam Fox: As I have said, we are looking at what evidence is emerging from the report. I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to look at it and, through the chain of command, to take the appropriate measures. Of course, anything that is done will have to be done within the law of the land.

Julian Lewis: Both Front Benchers and Back Benchers who have spoken so far have all quite rightly concentrated on the ethical dimension of this terrible case, but is the Secretary of State satisfied that the significance of abuses of this sort to counter-insurgency campaigning and the way in which they play into the hands of our enemies is sufficiently stressed by the heads of the armed services to the people on the front line?

Liam Fox: I am, and it is an essential part of counter-insurgency—and successful counter-insurgency—that we are seen to protect the population concerned. The improvements made to training, to facilities, to detainee handling and, indeed, to the current training of the Afghan forces on how to do the same will ensure that, although we can never remove the risk of such incidents happening, we can certainly minimise that risk.

Mark Durkan: I acknowledge the tenor of the Defence Secretary’s statement on this grave matter. Will he tell us more about what Sir William has said about the extent of the failings of the Ministry of Defence itself in relation to these matters? When he speaks about allowing the harsh approach to continue, as used by defined people in defined circumstances, who will define the people and the circumstances in future? Will the techniques involved in the short, sharp verbal treatment include any threat to detainees, their families or their communities?

Liam Fox: The mechanisms and approaches are set out in the appropriate training manuals and are emphasised during the training process. It is a matter of great regret that there was, as the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) has said, a loss of institutional memory in the Ministry of Defence. I personally find it difficult to understand how a statement given by a Prime Minister on the Floor of this House outlawing five interrogation techniques could be “forgotten” by the body corporate. There was a lack of codification, which has, I think, been put right in recent years. I share the disbelief that such a corporate memory failure could be allowed to occur.

Bob Stewart: To follow up what my hon. and good Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has said, I would like to take it to a lower level: when people are frightened, scared out of their wits, very tired and have lost friends, they sometimes lose their moral compass. Is my right hon. Friend instructing battalion commanders and brigade commanders
	to ensure that when such situations are likely, officers brief their men on exactly how they should act? In circumstances that we have heard about, as they apply to the Baha Mousa case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that supervision by officers and non-commissioned officers is as close as it possibly can be in order to stop weak people, who might also be thugs, from acting appallingly?

Liam Fox: In many professions, the whole point of professional training is to get individuals to behave under stressful circumstances in the same way as they would at any other time. That applies in the medical profession, and it applies to the Army. My hon. Friend is right to point to the duty of officers both to supervise and guide those they lead. One of the most appalling failures set out in the Baha Mousa inquiry was the failure of those in command generally to supervise and guide those for whom they were responsible. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

John Woodcock: Following the question from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to stress that the ethical dimension cannot be separated from the UK’s national interest? Holding our armed forces to a higher standard than many other regimes is, ultimately, necessary if we are to protect UK interests and spread the values that we hold dear across the world?

Liam Fox: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we do says who we are, and it is our behaviour, not our words, that defines how we are perceived and the ethical values that we represent.

Stephen Gilbert: There is clearly a balance to be struck in the use of tactical questioning. We need to protect the prisoner from abuse but we also need to protect our service personnel from allegations of abuse. Will the Secretary of State undertake to recommunicate the current guidelines and limits to all service personnel?

Liam Fox: I will certainly examine whether there is a need to do that, and if there is, I will certainly do so. As I have said, compared with the period in 2003 that the report examines, we now have a system in which every allegation is reported, recorded and investigated, and detainees are asked at various stages whether they have any complaints about their treatment. The way in which we now conduct these operations could not be more different from the way that is set out in the inquiry. We have learned some very important lessons, but the tragedy is that victims such as Baha Mousa were part of that learning process.

Dan Byles: George Orwell wrote:
	“We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.”
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the armed forces are unique because, along with certain elements of the police, they are armed and authorised to use lethal force on behalf of the state? Does he also agree that it is for that reason that we must never allow the principles of integrity and moral courage to be eroded, regardless of
	the circumstances in which our soldiers find themselves, and that we must never allow our rightful admiration for our armed forces to lead us to turn a blind eye to abuses such as this?

Liam Fox: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. It is worth remembering that liberty is not the natural state of affairs; it has to be fought for in every place and by every generation, and that sometimes requires us to take on forces of fanaticism that require rough or violent ways of engaging with them. Our armed forces are indeed licensed to use lethal force in the protection of the state, but they also have to operate within the law, both domestic and international. They have to conform to the highest ethical standards, not only because they represent this country but because it is by operating according to those ethical standards that their use of lethal force gains the acceptance of the British public.

Christopher Pincher: Although there can be no excuse for the horrors inflicted on Mr Mousa, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that the enemies of this country must not be allowed to portray the brutal actions of a few as an indictment of the 120,000 servicemen and women who gave heroic and exemplary service in Iraq, not least the two Tamworth soldiers, Private Leon Spicer and Private Phillip Hewett, who gave their lives in Iraq, and for Iraq, in 2005?

Liam Fox: I agree; it is indeed testimony to the quality and ethical behaviour of our armed forces that we are examining the behaviour of only a very small number of the 120,000 who served. However, as my hon. Friend says, there are no excuses, and the behaviour of a small number can taint the reputation of the many. That is why there can be no hiding place for this kind of behaviour.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the statement and the report, but will the Secretary of State tell us why this has taken so long to achieve, given that the incident took place more than a decade ago?

Liam Fox: The incident took place some eight years ago. In setting out this morning why the report took such a long time to produce—some three years—Sir William explained the complexities involved and the fact that the team had wanted to go into very great detail to ensure that as much information as possible was put into the public domain, that the full history of the detainee operations was set out, and that the context could be fully understood. He also said in his statement this morning that it would be for others to judge whether the time had been well spent. The report is very long and detailed, but it is actually very readable, and any Member who takes the time to look at it will come to the conclusion that Sir William’s time was extremely well spent.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for putting forward his case so clearly. Will he tell me what the difference is
	between tactical questioning and interrogation? Also, how can we ensure that this kind of thuggish activity does not become a recruiting sergeant for those who oppose the operations that we are undertaking or endanger the lives of armed forces personnel?

Liam Fox: I believe that such activity has been reduced to the lowest possible level by the measures that have been taken. The way in which we conduct operations in Afghanistan is very different from what occurred in Iraq, and that has been one of the major reasons for the success of the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend asked about the difference between tactical questioning and interrogation. Tactical questioning is defined as
	“the obtaining of information of a tactical nature from captured persons…the value of which could deteriorate or be lost altogether if the questioning was delayed”.
	That is obviously something that takes place close to the point of capture. Interrogation is defined as
	“the systematic, longer-term questioning of a selected individual by a trained and qualified interrogator”.
	That would normally take place in purpose-built facilities, as it does in Afghanistan at the present time.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and I pay tribute to the way in which he has responded to our questions. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on tactical questioning and interrogation, may I ask the Secretary of State what he meant by the term “harsh approach” that he used in his statement?

Liam Fox: As I said in response to an earlier question, the harsh approach is a short, sharp shock. It is used to ensure that the shock of capture is maintained, and to give us information. As well as extracting intelligence that can be used immediately on the ground—for example, information on where enemy forces or improvised explosive devices are—it can also be used to identify those who will go on into a further interrogation process. I believe that it is a necessary part of our weaponry in dealing with the threats that our armed forces face. That is why, although I was sympathetic to some of the issues that Sir William raised on this subject, I was unable fully to accept that recommendation.

David Morris: I hope that my right hon. Friend would agree that, no matter what shame has been brought on our armed forces as a result of this incident, it is in no way representative of the history and record of that fine regiment.

Liam Fox: In no way does the incident reflect upon the very proud history of the regiment, but those who were involved need to ask themselves whether their behaviour contributed to its proud history. That includes those who were involved in violent behaviour and those who showed a lack of leadership. They are the ones who need to ask themselves questions, not those in the broader regiment.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Mark Harper: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1, 2 and 9 but proposes the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of those amendments:—
	(a) Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	‘(4) The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
	(a) for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
	(b) for the publication of the committee's findings and recommendations (if any).
	(5) A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
	(6) Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.’.
	The Government have been prepared, both in this House and the other place, to consider and support amendments that improve the provisions of the Bill. That is the normal process for refining and agreeing legislation. However—again, quite normally—we have consistently opposed amendments that would wreck the Bill. Members of this House and those in the other place have had a chance to debate the Bill at length, and one issue remains outstanding: whether or not there should be a sunset clause. Some have called it as a sunrise clause, and it was referred to in the other place as a Lazarus clause.
	We have discussed Lord Pannick’s amendments—which inserted the sunset clause—before, and they were roundly defeated by 312 votes to 243, because they offended against the principle of the Bill: that parliamentary terms should be of a fixed length, and that the legislation should apply to each Parliament in the normal way unless repealed through the normal considered legislative process.
	The Bill as we would have it rightly does not attempt to entrench parliamentary terms. If a future Parliament wishes to move away from fixed terms, it may of course do so by either amending or repealing the legislation. We have, however, maintained consistently that a constitutional change such as a move towards or away from fixed-term Parliaments is not a small matter, and that it should be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament, as this Bill has indeed been. In contrast, the sunset amendments passed by their lordships would switch fixed terms on and off like a light switch, defaulting to non-fixed terms if a simple resolution failed to be tabled or, if it is passed, to “sunrise” provisions for fixed terms.
	In our view, it is clearly not appropriate for constitutional legislation to be applied or disapplied simply as a result of a resolution, and such changes should be made only following the normal legislative process. That view appears to be shared by the Lords Constitution Committee, whatever its misgivings about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny for first-Session Bills. Its recent report on the process of constitutional change emphasises the need for proper scrutiny of such constitutional changes. A particularly relevant paragraph states:
	“We believe that both government and Parliament should recognise the need for constraints on the process of constitutional change so that a situation whereby the government is effectively able to change the constitution at will may be avoided.”

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the Minister was not going to suggest that the Constitution Committee supported the Bill. As he knows, it clearly does not.

Mark Harper: I did not say that it did. I said that it had misgivings about the fact that there had been no opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny because this was a first-Session Bill. My point was that in its recent report—and not just in the paragraph that I quoted; throughout the report—it had said that constitutional change should be carried out properly. The idea that constitutional provisions such as this should be switched on and off through simple resolutions rather than through the proper legislative process, which involves consideration by both Houses of Parliament, is not appropriate. We agree with the sentiment expressed in the paragraph that I have just read out, which is why we oppose Lord Pannick’s amendments. Given that Lord Pannick is a member of the Constitution Committee and presumably supports the proper conduct of constitutional change, it is surprising that he is trying to insert in the Bill something that we do not think appropriate.
	We should also bear in mind that both Houses recently engaged in a debate similar to this during the passage of what is now the European Union Act 2011, and that both Houses decided that it would not be appropriate to include a sunset provision in that Act. In the debate, Lord Lamont wisely noted that a sunset provision was not appropriate because it would provide for primary legislation to be reversed by a simple resolution. We believe that the Lords amendments would have the same effect on this Bill, turning important amendments to the statute book on and off without proper scrutiny.
	The report of the European Scrutiny Committee on the European Union Bill states:
	“All Parliaments legislate for the future. Laws passed by one Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution. The real point is whether a government can, in law, make it difficult for a future Parliament to amend or repeal the legislation it has passed; in our view it cannot. Our conclusion therefore is straightforward—that an Act of Parliament applies until it is repealed”.
	That can also be said of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Should a future Parliament wish to amend or repeal the legislation, it could of course do so, but we believe that it should do so through the normal legislative process, not simply by passing, or failing to pass, a resolution.
	That, however, is not the only problem with the Lords amendments. They clearly assume that it would be possible for the Prime Minister to regain the option of asking Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament, but it is entirely possible that, by failing to provide for the prerogative power to dissolve to be reinstated, they have left matters in the position where neither the rules in the Bill nor the previous prerogative powers can have effect. Indeed, it is worth asking whether it is possible to reinstate a prerogative power that has been removed. It should also be noted that the United Kingdom Parliament did not think it appropriate to include sunset clauses when legislating for fixed terms for the Scottish Parliament,
	the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not entirely clear why it should consider it appropriate to “sunset” the fixed terms for this Parliament.
	Let us be clear: the Government believe that the sunset amendments would wreck the Bill and the principle of the Bill, which is why we oppose them. Our view was shared by others in the House of Lords. Lord Dobbs noted that the sole purpose of the amendments was to “wreck” the Bill, and went on to say:
	“This issue has effectively been decided in this House and in another place, whether we like it or agree with it or not. I would not say that to support a sunset clause on this occasion is unethical, but it is entirely inappropriate. We do not use it on any of the other constitutional Bills; it is not the time to start doing it now.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1096.]
	Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Members of the other place who gave us the amendments in the first place, and have given them back to us unchanged, have good intentions. I know that they are concerned about the major constitutional change to fixed-term Parliaments, and the abandoning of the current system whereby the Prime Minister has the power to call a general election whenever it suits his political purposes. I believe that the change that we propose is a good one—it works in many other countries, and in the devolved legislatures—but I understand why any significant change is apt to cause concern. That is why the system of post-legislative scrutiny exists, making it possible to consider whether measures are working and to make recommendations.
	We recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and we wish to give formal reassurance of a kind that is consistent with the principle of the Bill. Our amendment in lieu, which we tabled last Friday and which we wish to substitute for Lord Pannick’s three amendments, would provide that the Prime Minister must make arrangements to set up a committee to review the Bill’s operation after the first full fixed term, in 2020. Those arrangements would require the committee, if appropriate, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of the Act. That provides a categorical reassurance that the Bill will be given full post-legislative scrutiny. It is a much better solution than simply allowing a significant piece of legislation to lapse.

Peter Bone: Listening to the Minister’s opening remarks, I entirely agreed with him that there was no need for a sunset clause, but shortly afterwards he spoke of a review allowing the opportunity for such a clause. If there is no need for it—I agree with him on that—why bother to table the amendment? Moreover, I do not think that it will be possible for the Prime Minister to organise a review in 2020, because by then there will be a House business committee, and it will be for it to make the decision.

Mark Harper: The amendment in lieu does not concern a sunset provision. If the committee that was set up, having examined the operation of the Act and of fixed terms, concluded that the Act should be amended or, indeed, repealed, it could make such recommendations, but Parliament would then have to go through the full normal legislative process, with its checks and balances. There would not be a simple on-off provision that could be triggered in some constitutionally innovative way.
	As for my hon. Friend’s point about the House business committee, it would of course deal with the business of the House. The committee set up by the Prime Minister would have to consist of a certain number of Members of Parliament—although it would not be composed entirely of Members of Parliament—to make recommendations. It would not deal with the timetabling of parliamentary business. My hon. Friend is, of course, a big supporter of both the Backbench Business Committee and the establishment of a House business committee.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister clarify three points? First, why has he chosen 1 June 2020 as the start date, rather than immediately after the general election on the first Thursday of May? Secondly, does he expect the whole process to take place between 1 June and 30 November 2020? Thirdly, why have the Government not specified how many people will be on the committee? Surely that would have been a reasonable thing to do.

Mark Harper: We chose 2020 in order to ensure that the committee has had the experience of a full fixed term. After all, the Bill is not law yet. We argue that a fixed term is good not only because that takes that power away from the Prime Minister, but because it enables us to have a much more sensible set of arrangements. I hope it might mean that we would no longer need to have a wash-up process, because everybody would know when the parliamentary term would end. It may also help with handling pre-legislative scrutiny at the front end of the process—something for which we have been criticised. If a Government can be certain when a Parliament starts, how long it will last and how much time they will have, that will enable them to plan their legislative programme, including pre-legislative scrutiny, through that Session, which may result in some improvements. Such benefits will be properly seen only in the Parliament beginning in 2015; they will not be seen in this Parliament because the arrangements were not in place from the beginning of it. That is the reason for the 2020 date.
	The reason for the other two dates that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is simply to make sure that the commitment to set up a Committee is not open ended, in which case some people might lack confidence in whether the Prime Minister would set it up. The Prime Minister has to set it up between those two dates; those dates refer to the arrangements to set up the Committee. [Interruption.] Well, it would depend on what the Committee was looking at and how long that would take. It will not have to report by 30 November. That seemed an appropriate situation, and it is only a short period after the date of an election, so it did not seem to be an undue delay.

Thomas Docherty: Coalition negotiations!

Mark Harper: I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. He is reading too much into this.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is not a private conversation. Members’ comments need to be recorded and reported in Hansard. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas
	Docherty) wants to intervene on the Minister, I am sure the Minister will give way, but comments made from a sedentary position across the Chamber are not helpful.

Mark Harper: This arrangement would also allow time after the general election for the new Parliament to meet. It did not seem appropriate to set an aggressive timetable and force overly hasty decision making. The timetable is set out so that people can have confidence that the committee will be set up.

Andrew Percy: As the Minister knows, I thought the Bill was unnecessary and said so on Second Reading, but I cannot support the Lords amendments, because they seem equally unnecessary. Given that the Bill is primarily about the mechanism for the Dissolution of Parliament, which takes place at the end of a Parliament and over a short period, why do we have to wait until 2020 to review it?

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend thinks back to our earlier debates on the Bill and its effects, he will remember that this is not just a mechanical process to do with the detail of the Dissolution itself. Rather, it is about the consequences that flow from that. Much of our debate revolved around what will happen to the nature of the parliamentary process if we have fixed terms—what will be the benefits and potential negative consequences. The reason for looking at it after a full fixed term is to enable the committee to consider whether, as I would hope, the positive aspects of having fixed terms have come about. The point of that timing is to enable us to consider whether the possible positive outcomes we debated have come about, and alternatively whether some of the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House have been proved accurate, and then to make some recommendations and publish a report. As a consequence, this House will be in a good position to debate the matter and discover whether further legislation is needed.

Mark Durkan: So far, the Minister has focused on the fixed-term Parliament aspect of the Bill, but there is also the constituency aspect. Will the review that the amendment would allow also be able to look at issues such as whether the number of constituencies should be fixed at 600 or there should be more flexibility, and whether the boundary reviews should take place every five years?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman took part in many debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill before it was enacted, and he will remember that we set up a similar type of review mechanism to look at the operation of that legislation in respect of parliamentary boundaries. A similar type of post-legislative scrutiny and review was set up to consider precisely those issues in that legislation, therefore. I hope that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Andrew Percy: Will the Minister also look at the question of the term of the Parliament, which we have discussed before?

Mark Harper: That is a perfectly good question. The Bill sets up arrangements for a review of its operation in general. It is not an overly constrained review, therefore. The Committee would be able to look at the effects in the round and make appropriate recommendations that this House and the other place could then consider.
	I hope the amendment in lieu will address some of the concerns expressed in the other place. Indeed, the Chair of the Constitution Committee, Baroness Jay, said during the consideration of Commons amendments that the Bill should be subject to some form of post-legislative scrutiny. I hope she and other Members will find our amendment in lieu acceptable.
	It has also been suggested that the Lords amendments would alter this Chamber’s relationship with the other place, as they would provide that the Bill’s provisions for a fixed term could be “revived” only through a resolution of both Houses, which would concede an element of our primacy to the other place. I share that view. We can envisage a situation in which this House is wholly in favour of reinstating fixed terms but is stymied by what amounts to a power of veto given to the other, unelected, House. That cannot be right. If we send a clear message to those in the other place on this issue, letting them know we do not want, nor have ever wanted, a sunset clause to these provisions, then I am sure they will listen.

Nigel Dodds: Would the Minister change his mind on that point if the other place were partially or fully elected?

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman is leaping far ahead. We are considering this Bill now. Meanwhile, our reform proposals for the House of Lords have been published and are being scrutinised by the relevant Joint Committee. If at some point in future it is decided to change the arrangements under this Bill, that can be done in the normal way. The Bill can be amended or repealed through the normal legislative process. We are not seeking to constrain that. We are simply saying that the rather novel constitutional provisions that the Lords has inserted are inappropriate to a constitutional Bill.

Chris Bryant: Let me raise a few protest points at the outset. First, the Bill started its lengthy process on 22 July last year. In the normal course of parliamentary business, this parliamentary Session would have come to an end by now and therefore this Bill would already have fallen, so it would not be becoming law. Indeed, there would have been a point at which the House of Lords would have been able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire so as to extract greater concessions from them. I merely note that the Government have managed to give themselves a two-year Session. When the Leader of the House announced that that was going to be the case, I complained that it would give added powers to the Government. This is yet another example of how the Government have abused the constitution over the past year.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We were both elected in 2001, so I am sure he will recall that in both the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments the first Session lasted about 18 or 19 months.

Chris Bryant: No, we would now be in the mop-up session, and during that time there would be many other Bills that would need to be dealt with in limited time. Indeed, there are plenty of other Bills clamouring for time in this Chamber at present. That is precisely my point. There is no pressure on the Government to come to an agreement because they have another six months in which to do so.

Peter Bone: The shadow Minister of course makes a fair point, but to balance it we have to give credit to the Government for introducing fixed one-year Sessions in future. There is another side to this, although he makes a fair point.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for my argument.
	The other process point that I wish to make is that the lords debated their amendments in July and the Government tabled their amendment last Friday, but the amendment was not available in the Vote Office until this morning—that was despite my having asked for it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I had no access to the amendment tabled by the Government until today. I understand it to be normal practice, just as a matter of courtesy, for ministerial offices to write to shadow spokespeople when the Government table amendments to Bills in which the spokespeople have been involved, in order to give them notification. I say gently to the Minister that it would have been nice if he had been able to notify us of amendments.
	It would also have been good if the Whips Office had, instead of stating categorically all this week, until about 3 pm yesterday, that we were not going to be dealing with this Bill this afternoon, owned up to the truth, which was that the intention was always to deal with this Bill this afternoon. Indeed, the Whips Office had told the Minister so, and the fact that this Bill was going to be discussed this afternoon had been set out in his diary for several weeks.

Peter Bone: The shadow Minister makes a good point about the Whips Office. Will he be here tomorrow to support my Bill abolishing the Whips Office?

Chris Bryant: I am happy to abolish the Government Whips Office, but I am very fond of my Whips Office. It is always best to remain in as good an odour as possible with one’s Whips.
	The simple point of process is that when the Leader of the House announces in the future business—as has been said, we hope that the Backbench Business Committee will do this in future—that consideration of Lords amendments may take place, he never specifies the Bill to which that relates. That is an unfortunate way of doing business, and it might make much more sense if, in future, the Government were to announce the Bills in question. If every Member of the House had known at the beginning of the week that we were going to be dealing with this Bill today, the Chamber might have been packed to the rafters—I note that it is not. That is despite the fact that we are sure to hear a wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and many would have crowded in just to see her jacket this afternoon.
	The amendment, in essence, confesses that the Government have not achieved consensus on a major constitutional change. Again, I say gently to the Minister that when any constitutional change is being made, especially when pre-legislative scrutiny has not been undertaken, when no draft legislation has been produced, when the change was not adumbrated in one of the governing parties’ manifestos and when it is a significant change from what was in the manifesto of either of the two governing parties, it is all the more important that Ministers and the Government in general proceed on the basis of consensus. Although I am often a fierce critic of the House of Lords, of its hereditary principle and of its appointment principle—I call it the “patronage principle”—I believe that the Lords plays an important stop-gap role in constitutional affairs. That is why I believe that this amendment owns up to the fact that, as Lord Butler of Brockwell put it, this legislation has been introduced
	“without proper consultation, preparation or consideration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1080.]
	For many years, we relished listening in this Chamber to Lord Cormack, the greatest par-li-a-ment-ar-i-an of his age—he used about seven syllables when saying that word. As he said, this is an
	“ill thought-out, unnecessary and bad Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1087.]
	There are specific problems with this amendment, most notably because it does not add anything. If their lordships think that it is a concession, they are completely mistaken, because already the Government will have to undertake post-legislative scrutiny on this legislation in the next Parliament. All the amendment does is provide for another version of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny will already have taken place four years before the date in 2020 when the amendment suggests it should occur.
	I am somewhat of a suspicious mind; I think that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister has insisted on this date in 2020 is his ambition to put up joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative candidates at the next general election and to be able to continue the coalition for two parliamentary Sessions. I say that because it was not an immaculate conception that led to this constitutional Bill; it was conceived behind the bike sheds as a result of the coalition partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—trying to fix the length of this parliamentary Session so that nobody could abscond should any difficulties arise. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is just waving to me or whether he would like to intervene. It appears that he wishes to intervene.

Andrew Percy: The hon. Gentleman’s argument about joint candidates falls down because he needs to be able to find someone willing to stand as a Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidate.

Chris Bryant: I believe that earlier this week the Prime Minister described himself as a, “Pragmatic liberal conservative Eurosceptic”—he used different arrangements of those words in different arenas, as is his wont.
	In addition, the amendment presumes that not only this Parliament, but a second one will run for a full five years. If that was not the case, choosing to specify dates in June and November 2020 would be particularly
	bizarre, as they might fall two years into another Session. This is where the following statement by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is correct, although I confess that I do not quite understand the first bit:
	“It is all Lombard Street to a China orange that the time will come when a premature Dissolution would be to the manifest benefit of the country”.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1088.]
	I think that that is true. If we consider the recent history of the United Kingdom, we see that even on occasions when the Government had a decent majority, such as in 1964 and 1974—although the latter situation was more complicated—they decided to hold a new election because they felt that they needed a mandate to deal with a specific set of issues that had not arisen at the previous general election. I believe that that will happen again and that it will be in the interests of Parliament to have the greatest degree of flexibility to allow it to happen, if not to encourage it to happen. That is why this amendment, in trying to entrench not just one fixed term, but two—in the interests of the coalition rather than the country—is misguided. As I said, the amendment adds nothing because post-legislative scrutiny, a fixed part of the way in which we carry out our business, will apply to this legislation.
	The Minister, charming as he is, tried to assert that fixed-term Parliaments are used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in relation to local government elections and so on. However, these do not seem to have been very fixed in the past few years. Indeed, in the short time that he has been in power he has already changed the term for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Now the Government have just decided that there will not be a fixed term for the police commissioners, because the first term will be slightly shorter than the second one, as the Government are not going to be able to get their legislation through in time to have elections next May and so the first elections will take place next November. So I am profoundly sceptical even about the ability of the hard-line fixed-termers, such as him, to deliver a fixed-term Parliament, because of the way in which politics works.
	I wish to make a few comments about the specifics of the amendment. It states:
	“A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.”
	I do not believe that the Government consulted anyone in the Opposition on this amendment. I am sure that had the Minister done so, he would now be leaping to his feet to defend himself—it appears, therefore, that he has not sought a consensus on this constitutional change. If consultation had taken place, we might have made some suggestions about how to constitute such a committee. It might have been better to state from the outset that it should involve Members of the House of Commons. I think that we should return to the practice of the 15th and 16th centuries—I am sure I have one hon. Member on my side here—which was that Joint Committees of both Houses should have two Members of the House of Commons for every Member of the House of Lords. I admit that that was at a time when there were perhaps 60 or 70 Members of the House of Lords and 480 or so of the House of Commons, whereas they are getting
	towards having double the number we have in this House. None the less, while this is a democratically elected House and that is not, it would make more sense for the majority from this House to be 2:1.
	I note en passant that one Member of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—not from the Opposition side of the House—pointed out that having such a large number of members of a Joint Committee makes it very difficult to do serious business. It is quite difficult with large Select Committees, but with 24 or 26 members of a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is phenomenally difficult to make progress.

Peter Bone: rose—

Chris Bryant: Of course I will give way to the hon. and gentlemanly Gentleman.

Peter Bone: I was just reflecting on the numbers. Are there not about 800 peers and 600-odd Members of this House? I think the hon. Gentleman’s calculations are slightly wrong.

Chris Bryant: Yes, I was noting the acceleration. The coalition has a commitment in its agreement that it will keep appointing more Member of the House of Lords until the numbers mirror the representation in the House of Commons. That means that they have another 269 to appoint. We are pretty much getting on for having up to double the number of Members at that end as there are here. In addition, the Government want to elect some Members so that if the Government get their way, without sensible amendments from the Opposition, we will have twice as many Members of the House of Lords as of the House of Commons.
	The Minister said that the danger of a sunset clause would be that it would be like switching a light bulb on and off. What he fails to understand is something that some of us have been arguing for through several Bills—that is, many of the measures contained in the Bill would be far better dealt with through the Standing Orders of this House, particularly anything to do with a no confidence motion. There is a danger that otherwise they will be justiciable in the courts. He refuses to accept that. If it had been a question of Standing Orders, then as with any other Standing Order this would be a matter for the House to change. It would not need three readings, nor would it have to go to two Houses; it would just be a matter of a simple vote.
	The Minister sets his mind against sunset clauses, but I remember when he used to sit over on the Opposition Benches—what halcyon days—and used to campaign for sunset clauses galore on Government legislation. With virtually every change we introduced through legislation on security and policing, for instance, the then Opposition demanded a sunset clause. On civil liberties, control orders and all these different elements of legislation there was a campaign from Opposition Members saying that there must be a sunset clause. Quite often, we succumbed to that campaign and we put them in. In a large amount of our civil liberties legislation, there were sunset clauses and provisions had to be renewed every year.
	One of the most significant sunset clauses in our constitution refers to the inability of the Crown to have a standing Army unless there is a vote in the House of
	Commons every five years. That is a sunset clause on the single most important part of our constitution: namely, the Crown’s ability to defend the country. The Minister is completely wrong to invent this new concept that we cannot have a sunset clause in a constitutional Bill—and only in such a Bill.
	The Minister also said that there are no sunset clauses in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the single difference between this case and those instances is that there was absolutely no consultation with the wider public on this legislation. As for setting up devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was lengthy and protracted cross-party consensus on precisely how everything should be set up. I think he is whispering something about the Conservatives not agreeing to devolution in Scotland, but we rejoice that the sinner repenteth. They had the opportunity to take part in that lengthy process of consultation and that is surely the proper process for changing the constitution.
	Let me come to my penultimate point. The Minister says that those in the Lords who have presented amendments have good intentions, but he reminds me of something that happened when I went to a theatre a few years ago. There was a couple who had had a terrible row sitting in front of me and just before the play started, the woman turned to the man and said, “And the worst of it is that you’re so blasted pate-ronising.” He kissed her on the forehead and said, “It’s pat-ronising, dear.”
	To be honest, I thought the Minister’s approach to their lordships—who are senior constitutional experts and have seen many of the corridors of power far more extensively than he or I—was downright patronising. I think they have come up with a good solution. The coalition Government can have their five years and there will be a general election in 2015 unless one of the Members for Bedfordshire manages to split the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister from one another, but thereafter it should be for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to decide whether to continue with this legislation.
	I am sure that the Government Whips, through their nefarious processes, will have engineered that there are plenty of people to see off their lordships’ amendment this afternoon, but I tell their lordships that the Government are attempting to get them to sell their soul for a mess of pottage. The Government amendment is not an amendment that is worth supporting—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose —

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is a fine, tall gentleman, so I give way to him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While he is urging their lordships to stand firm, I wonder whether he might like to remind them that the Parliament Act does not apply so they can insist for as long as they like.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although I am surprised he is only taking us back to 1911. He normally takes us back a little further. The Parliament Act cannot be used in relation to this legislation
	because the Bill would allow for the extension of Parliament beyond five years—possibly to five years and two months—and that Act expressly prevents the Speaker from forcing the Bill on their lordships. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: your lordships, stand firm.

Alan Reid: The Lords amendment we are debating requires the Bill’s provisions to be renewed if they are to be used in each future Parliament, but the Pannick amendment defeats the purpose of the Bill by permitting fixed-term Parliaments only if agreed by both Houses in a future Parliament. It effectively annuls the provisions of the Bill unless both Houses of every future Parliament vote to put the provisions back in place.
	The Lords amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment, because it does not even require a resolution to be brought forward to annul the provisions—it is the other way around. Resolutions have to be put forward in future Parliaments to re-establish the provisions. That is completely unnecessary, because if a future Parliament wanted to amend this Bill, it could do so through the normal process of legislation. The amendment simply creates an unnecessary layer of law and its real purpose is to wreck the Bill. It would have been better if the Lords had simply been honest about it and voted against the Bill rather than trying to insert this clause, which is simply a wrecking measure by another route.
	The Government’s new amendment, which I support, provides to the Lords a reasonable compromise in that it allows post-legislative scrutiny after we have seen the effects of the Bill through the full cycle. I urge the House to accept the Government’s amendment and reject the Lords’ wrecking amendment.

Thomas Docherty: May I begin by asking the Minister to answer the third question I posed to him? In some ways, it is the most important—it is the question about the size of the proposed Committee. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister and I think he secretly enjoys coming along on a Thursday lunchtime and spending some time with right hon. and hon. Friends on his side and on ours. We have excellent debates and he engages well with them. I suspect that the reason why we have such a poorly drafted offer from the Deputy Prime Minister and why the Minister has signed it off on behalf of the Prime Minister is that he knows the Lords will have to reject it, because it is so badly written, and he will be able to come back next week or in October and have another swing at this. The proposition offered on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister opens up many questions that have not been answered about the size and remit of the Committee.
	One could reasonably say that the Bill will have an impact not only on the workings of both Houses but on the devolved Administrations and on the local authority elections that subsequently take place, because we would have to have five-year Parliaments permanently for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in order to keep one year behind. That is a very unsatisfactory arrangement.

Alan Reid: Surely, the Bill removes the uncertainty that would otherwise have applied, because without it not only would the Scottish elections have been scheduled
	for May 2015 but if this Parliament were to go full term, that election would also be in May 2015. That complete and utter uncertainty is removed by the Bill.

Thomas Docherty: I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism about the coalition holding together successfully for the full five years. I think that he is accepting that, in effect, we now have, permanently, a five-year Scottish Parliament and a five-year Welsh Assembly, but I am not sure whether legislation will be brought forward to make that clear in the next Parliament. That is a huge change in constitutional convention and I think he was involved in that. Certainly, his party played a significant role and there was cross-party consensus on it.
	One of the key issues was having a four-year Scottish Parliament. I would very much hope that if the Committee were set up, it would have a remit that covered not just the impact on the workings of both Houses, but the impact on devolved Administrations and on local authority elections in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is disappointing that we have seen no such indication from the Deputy Prime Minister about what the Committee’s remit would be.
	It is also disappointing to note that there is no length of time attached to when the Committee is expected to report by. If I were cynical and thought that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be trusted and might make a pledge that he would then break, I might think this issue would then be kicked into the proverbial long grass for, perhaps, the full five-year period. I was very surprised that although the Minister gave a reasonably satisfactory assurance about the starting date of the Committee, a closing date for its work has not been provided. I look forward to hearing his response in a few minutes, when I very much hope he will deal with that point.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) that this is a wrecking measure. I have been in the House for only 15 months but it strikes me that every time the Deputy Prime Minister puts forward something that his coalition partners are not keen on, some measures are described as wrecking measures. I seem to recall that exactly the same argument was used about changing the date of the referendum on the alternative vote. It was said that moving the date back six months would wreck the whole premise, but I note that that argument was not put forward this week by the Liberal Democrats about shifting the date of the police elections—somehow that is not a wrecking measure, but I cannot think why.
	It is very disappointing that the debate was not better advertised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, possibly because the Patronage Secretary was hoping that many of his more principled colleagues would make other arrangements for this afternoon and would not be around to give the measures the due diligence they could do with. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline why we were not notified until 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon that this important debate was going to take place.
	The last issue that I want to address is the Minister’s argument that it would take nine years to start this process. I do not see why he requires, effectively, two complete Sessions of five-year fixed terms to do this. His argument about the upper House is quite revealing
	and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in his party will take great comfort from the fact that he is now saying that there will not be an elected upper House and that we will rightly have a fully appointed House of Lords, as we have at the moment. I am sure that is part of the deal that was cooked up over dinner last night. I understand that the Minister was the subject of some roasting last night at the dinner and it is good to see his hands fully today. I understand that there was some concern among parliamentary colleagues that he would have to keep his hands in sight at all times. Without further ado, I will sit down so that he can respond.

Mark Harper: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me deal with the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point about the amendment’s availability. It was tabled on Friday and—obviously, processes of the House are a matter for the House—it was certainly on the parliamentary website for the world to see by Monday. So there were three, clear parliamentary days for Members on both sides of the House to look at the amendment and consider their views. The hon. Gentleman’s comments about the usual channels will obviously have been heard by them, and I hesitate to trespass on those matters. I shall leave that point there.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill has not had proper consideration, but it absolutely has. It is true that it did not have pre-legislative scrutiny—and we have explained on a number of occasions that it was a first-Session Bill and that we wanted to make progress on it—but it has had extensive legislative consideration in this House and in the other place. He pointed out that it was introduced to the other place more than a year ago, so the idea that this important Bill has not had proper scrutiny simply is not correct.
	The hon. Gentleman said that post-legislative scrutiny already takes place and he is quite right to say that that is done not by the Government but by Parliament. The Government produce a memorandum on Bills that they submit to Parliament, but they do not, of course, scrutinise themselves. This simply adds to the existing scrutiny that will already take place—because of the concerns that people had, we wanted to make it explicit that the Prime Minister would set up a Committee that would look at the operation of the Act and would then have to report and would give the House the opportunity for a full debate.
	Picking up the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised about the detail—the number of members on the Committee and the end point—this goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda made about operating by consensus. The Prime Minister would set up the Committee, but details about the number of members and the out-date would be addressed later. The terms of reference would clearly be very wide—the amendment mentions
	“a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act”
	but does not narrow the terms. Those issues would clearly be agreed through the usual channels so there would be some sort of consensus for parties to appoint their Members to the Committee. It seems to me sensible to allow that process to take place rather than to set down every detail in the Bill.

Chris Bryant: The Minister says that we should clearly take it as read that the Prime Minister would engage in consultation with the Opposition, but I note that the Minister tabled a written ministerial statement this morning on the West Lothian question and the setting up of a commission, but he does not indicate at any point that he is going to consult with the Opposition on its terms of reference or its membership.

Mark Harper: I have just said that that would take place—the consensus on the Committee’s terms of reference, as is usual. That is very sensible; we do not want to put all the detail in the motion. The hon. Gentleman should read this morning’s written statement—I will not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did—and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss some of the details tomorrow, when we debate a private Member’s Bill. The written statement sets out our overall position on the commission on the West Lothian question. We will consult Mr Speaker on some of the details involving the House, and we have also said that we will have a full opportunity for all the parties to consider the matter. That was in this morning’s statement.

Mark Durkan: May I take the Minister back to the points about consultation that may be involved when the Committee is formed? Will he assure us that that consultation will not just be through the usual channels with the Opposition, but will involve all parties? As a matter of principle, my party has never accepted nomination to the House of Lords, and we were singularly excluded from any consideration in relation to the Committee that has been formed on that matter.

Mark Harper: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that and thank him for making it. Given the nature of the matter, it would be helpful if the Committee were wide ranging. That is also a good reason not to be too specific about, for example, the size of the Committee. Clearly, we need to ensure that Members from all parts of the House are able to be represented properly. On setting down how big the Committee should be, there is, of course, a tension if Committees are too large, but if they are too small they can be too narrow. It would be helpful to be able to have that debate when we know something about how the measures have worked in practice.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister be straight and guarantee that he will ensure that there is consultation with the opposition parties on the terms of reference of the West Lothian commission?

Mark Harper: With respect, we are debating the motion. The hon. Gentleman and I can have a conversation about the West Lothian commission elsewhere.

Chris Bryant: So you won’t?

Mark Harper: I have only a few minutes and I am trying to deal with the points that hon. Members have raised.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland about this Committee and about the West Lothian commission?

Mark Harper: On this Committee, the Prime Minister will of course be able to consult others. The operation of this Parliament, though, is a matter for this Parliament, so I would not necessarily expect that to take place. I should also correct one thing that was said earlier: we have changed the terms of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but we have not made any changes to the terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those matters were left for consultation between the parties. It is worth putting that on the record.
	I think I have dealt with the issues I noted down that were raised by Members on both sides of the House. I urge the House to support the motion.
	Question  put .
	The House divided:

Ayes 253, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Point of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This relates to what we have just been discussing, so I am sorry that the Minister has already fled the Chamber. A written ministerial statement relating to the commission on the West Lothian question was tabled this morning. It states that the Government will
	“consult with Mr Speaker and other Parliamentary authorities”
	on how the commission can be created and how it will consider matters relating to how Parliament should address the West Lothian question. We note that that puts any onus to consult other political parties on the Speaker. I hope that you will take back to Mr Speaker the Opposition’s hope that all political parties in the House will be consulted before terms of reference are brought forward and the membership of the commission is agreed. I raise this as a point of order only because the Government have decided to put the matter of consultation in the hands of Mr Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, strictly speaking that is not a point of order for business today, but he has made his point on the written ministerial statement, and I am absolutely confident that Mr Speaker will have considered all the necessary matters that will involve him. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that Mr Speaker will discharge his duties accordingly.

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will read what the hon. Gentleman has said in Hansard—I did not hear all of it, because he did not do me the courtesy of notifying me of his intention to raise a point of order. Had I heard all of it, I would have been able to respond now. I will respond at a later date.

Dawn Primarolo: Minister, we are grateful for your offer of help. I am sure that the House will now be able to proceed with the business before us.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the Minister, I wish to inform the House of an issue that will need to be dealt with. I understand that amendments to the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on Tuesday evening did not appear on the amendment paper. The reasons for this, which are currently unknown, are being urgently investigated. As this oversight has been discovered at such a late stage, I do not consider it appropriate to select the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. However, he can be confident that he will be able to raise his substantive concerns about the Bill during this afternoon’s proceedings.

Christopher Chope: Further to that statement, human error has obviously intervened in the matter, and it is the first time in 28 years—since I was first elected—that amendments which I have tabled have not been translated on to the amendment paper. It is a pity that I was on parliamentary business abroad yesterday and did not realise that there was a problem until first thing this morning, but I am happy that we will be able to discuss at least the substance of my amendments under the debate on new clause 2. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making that indication.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation, but as he has said, although this is a very rare occurrence, it is none the less of a nature that needs to be taken seriously and urgently investigated, and I am sure that the Table Office will inform him of exactly why it occurred.

New Clause 1
	  
	Goods vehicle operator licences

After section 16D of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, insert—
	“16E Goods vehicle operator licences: waiver of procedural requirements
	(1) This section applies in a case where, on an application to vary an operator’s licence under section 17 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), a traffic commissioner is satisfied that—
	(a) the variation applied for has a connection with the London Olympics,
	(b) there would not, but for this section, be sufficient time to dispose of the application before the beginning of the London Olympics period, and
	(c) the circumstances in which the application is being made are such that, but for this section, it could not have been made in sufficient time to be disposed of before the beginning of that period.
	(2) The traffic commissioner may direct—
	(a) that subsection (3) is to apply in relation to the application, and
	(b) if the traffic commissioner proposes to hold an inquiry under section 35 of the 1995 Act in relation to the application, that subsection (4) is to apply in relation to the inquiry.
	(3) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(a), the following provisions of the 1995 Act do not apply in relation to the application—
	(a) section 17(3) (publication of notice by traffic commissioner);
	(b) section 18 (publication of notice by operator).
	(4) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(b), Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/2869), in its application to the inquiry, has effect as if for sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 there were substituted—
	(3) The traffic commissioner may abridge the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).”
	(5) Section 23 of the 1995 Act (conditions as to use of operating centres) applies in relation to the licence as if the application were an application of which notice has been published under section 17(3) of that Act.
	(6) Such variations as are made to the licence on the application, including by the attachment of conditions under section 21 or 23 of the 1995 Act (road safety and operating centres), have effect only during the London Olympics period.
	(7) Subsection (3)(a) does not affect the liability incurred in respect of the application under regulation 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/3000) (which requires payment of a fee on an application for variation for which publication is required by section 17(3) of the 1995 Act).
	(8) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) includes power to vary or revoke the direction.
	(9) In exercising functions under this section, the traffic commissioner must act under the general directions of, and have regard to guidance given by, the senior traffic commissioner.
	(10) In this section, “operator’s licence” has the same meaning as in the 1995 Act (see section 2(1) of that Act).”’.—(Hugh Robertson.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 3 and 4

Hugh Robertson: Hon. Members may recall that back in May, when the Bill was being scrutinised in Committee, Transport for London submitted evidence that called for further amendments. TfL argued that in order to ensure that businesses in London continued to receive goods deliveries and operators were able to arrange delivery times that were compliant with time restrictions for the games, amendments to goods vehicle legislation were required. I am very grateful to the Committee for its encouragement to bring forward changes, if necessary. The Government have considered the matter, and as a result I am introducing a small number of technical amendments to address the concerns that TfL raised.
	Operator licences are granted by traffic commissioners, TCs, who are independent office holders and statutorily appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport. One matter that a TC is required to consider when granting a licence is the suitability of the operating centre where vehicles are usually parked and maintained. About 1,700 of the 92,000 goods vehicle operator licences in place contain conditions relating to operating centres, such as conditions concerning hours of use. There is an existing process by which operators may apply to vary
	the conditions of their licence. In most cases, the Government would expect operators to plan for the need for any variation and to seek it via normal procedures.
	Traffic commissioners plan to write to all those operators who have environmental conditions on their licence, reminding them of the need to consider whether the Olympics are likely to have an impact that demands a variation, and to get their applications in now. Typically, for a straightforward case that involves environmental issues, it normally takes between 15 and 20 weeks for an operator’s application for a variation to be considered under current statutory processes, and traffic commissioners cannot short-circuit those procedures.
	Despite such preparatory steps, however, the Government believe that, owing to entirely unforeseen circumstances such as the award of a short-term haulage contract or a short-notice change to an existing contract, some operators will need to seek a relaxation of their environmental licence conditions shortly before the start of the Olympic period.
	Government intervention is therefore necessary to ensure that in such exceptional circumstances—I repeat that it is only in those exceptional circumstances—operators can apply at short notice for a variation to their environmental conditions, particularly in the hours of operation. As a result, new clause 1 would provide for an expedited process that removed the statutory requirement whereby a games-related application needs to be advertised by the operator who has submitted the application. It would remove the requirement for a traffic commissioner to publish the application; it would retain the statutory power of a traffic commissioner to hold public inquiries to seek further information to inform their decision; and it would remove the statutory requirement whereby the notice period for a public inquiry can be abridged only if the consent of all persons entitled to attend a public inquiry is given.
	We have considered carefully whether it is proportionate and justified to remove those safeguards, and we consider that it is. Without short-circuiting existing procedures, there will be no way in which an urgent application, arising from unforeseen circumstances around the Olympic games, can be dealt with quickly enough.
	Importantly, however, traffic commissioners’ powers to determine individual applications would be retained, including their powers to impose additional conditions to counter any environmental nuisance that might result. For example, they may want to stipulate that quieter vehicle operations be followed, such as restricting the use of lorry-reversing beepers. Retaining the discretion of traffic commissioners and their knowledge of operators and localities when considering individual applications would help to avoid any abuse of the temporary flexibility.
	Amendments 3 and 4 are consequential to the changes that new clause would bring in. Taken together, the measures—this is really the crucial thing—should help to ensure that, during games time, goods can be delivered and services provided, so contributing to the successful delivery of the London games.

Edward Timpson: In new clause 1, proposed new section 16E(1)(a) refers to the “connection” that a variation of an application has with the Olympic games. Will my hon. Friend expand on the guidance that will be given to traffic
	commissioners as to what a connection with the London Olympic games is deemed to be, in order to ensure that their decisions are based on the right criteria?

Hugh Robertson: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but to a certain extent I should hope that any connection will be reasonably self-evident. It will refer to things that happen over the Olympic games period, a clearly defined period from 27 July to just before the middle of August, and it will clearly refer only to games-time activities, so I hope that in those circumstances it will be reasonably obvious to the traffic commissioner what they are dealing with.

Tessa Jowell: We are pleased to support new clause 1 and the consequential amendments 3 and 4, because, as the Minister has clearly set out and, indeed, our constructive discussions in Committee reflected, new clause 1 and the consequential amendments would allow traffic commissioners to apply a shortened application procedure for haulage operators who want to apply for a change to any environmental conditions imposed on the location where their lorries are kept, particularly the hours that they may operate in and out of that location.
	That flexibility is of enormous importance during the period of the games, as many haulage operators may need to adjust their operations in response to increased delivery restrictions in London, as well as in other areas of Britain where Olympic events are being held.
	I will come on to this point when we discuss new clause 2, but it is my firm belief that although some of the operational necessities of the games may cause inconvenience for individuals and businesses, we should do all that we can to keep that inconvenience to a minimum. Again, there was a strong consensus on that in Committee.
	New clause 1 is therefore a sensible measure that will make it easier for haulage operators to adjust to difficulties that they may experience as a result of the games. It forms part of a critical wider programme led by Transport for London to encourage individuals and businesses to change their travel behaviour and arrangements during what will be, by any measure, a challenging time for London’s transport system. I think that Members on both sides of the House are confident that London will rise to that challenge, and we are happy to offer our support.

Don Foster: May I begin by saying that I was mildly disappointed with the business managers—this is absolutely no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or Mr Speaker—for selecting today of all days to debate this important Bill, given that many of us who are here would far rather be celebrating with our Paralympians as today is Paralympics day? Perhaps there will be an opportunity later today to do that.
	The new clause and the consequent amendments are very important. During one of the excellent sittings in which the Committee took oral evidence from expert witnesses, I asked Mr Garrett Emmerson of London Streets, which is a Transport for London body,
	“are you confident that we have sufficient powers, or that sufficient powers will be given to the right people, to deal with freight vehicles on our roads that are delivering to keep our city running smoothly?”
	I stress the words about keeping the “city running smoothly”, because this is not just about ensuring that what needs to be done for the 2012 games happens. He replied:
	“We have identified a major concern about the ability of freight operators to service the business community at key times during the games.”
	He went on to say:
	“A single-day event, such as the royal wedding, is a very different proposition from three weeks of a continuous event. For a single day, it is not a particularly huge challenge to say, “Well, actually, we can’t make a delivery on Friday; it will have to come on Thursday or Saturday.” But the sustained duration of this event creates a very different proposition for businesses.”––[Official Report, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 41, Q87.]
	Because of those concerns, TfL and other bodies have been working hard to warn the business community of changes that will take place during the Olympic and Paralympic games, and to provide it with as much help and support as possible to alter its arrangements. That will of course impact on things such as deliveries to businesses. The examples are pretty obvious: pubs need beer, sandwich shops need bread and businesses need photocopier paper—the list is endless. Businesses that have planned will organise their deliveries to come at the right time. It is fabulous that TfL and others are giving plenty of notice to such organisations. Even today, TfL has had a session with more than 70 major freight operators to advise them that they should be working with the people they supply, so that those people, in turn, can plan accordingly.
	The issue is what happens if a business has not been far-sighted and efficient enough to plan with its supplier the deliveries that it needs in order to keep going. My question to the Minister is whether those circumstances are envisaged in the language that is used in the new clause, which states that the variation applied for
	“has a connection with the London Olympics”.
	That is somewhat different from being influenced by the London Olympics. I assume from the Minister’s response to an earlier intervention that that interpretation is the one that he is using. However, that would not necessarily fall within his other comments that something should be “urgent” and “unforeseen”. In some cases, it might just be down to the incompetence of the person who needs the supplies.
	The Minister says that he hopes the new clause is reasonably self-evident. I am not convinced that it is. If he gives a very clear explanation that it will apply to circumstances that occur because of the London Olympics, with all the caveats that he set out—of course the traffic commissioners will consider whether it really is necessary—that will solve the problem. I look forward to him giving that assurance when he responds.

Hugh Robertson: I think I can be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. On that basis, I hope that we can agree to the new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Operation of Olympic Route Network

‘(1) Section 11 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4) in paragraph (a) leave out from “unless” to end of paragraph and insert— “the following have been consulted—
	(i) the highway authority, traffic authority or street authority with responsibility for each road designated in the order, and
	(ii) members of the public living in the Greater London Authority area and in the local authority areas through which roads designated in the order run,”.
	(3) In subsection (4) after paragraph (a) insert—
	“(aa) may not be made unless the consultation under paragraph (a) considered—
	(i) proposals for the minimisation of disruption to the general public due to the operation of the Olympic Route Network,
	(ii) proposals for informing members of the public in relation to the proposed Olympic Route Network and its likely impact on local and regional traffic,
	(iii) proposals for maintaining road safety and preventing accidents which might result from operation of the Olympic Route Network,
	(iv) proposals for allowing taxis licensed under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 or under any similar enactment to use the Olympic Route Network in appropriate circumstances, and
	(v) proposals for ensuring that the Olympic Route Network and related restrictions should be in operation for the shortest time possible in order to achieve the purposes set out in subsections (1) and (2).”’.—(Tessa Jowell.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I want to begin by expressing our support for the changes to the management of traffic, on which we gave undertakings in the bid book. Olympic lanes were a condition of bidding for the games, and they are vital in ensuring that we have a smooth flow of key people to and from events. In the bid book, as the Minister will be aware, we made a commitment to
	“a designated ORN”—
	Olympic route network—with Olympic lanes
	“to speed the journeys of the Olympic family.”
	My purpose today is to raise some of the operational issues concerning the upheaval—the welcome upheaval—in prospect for our city which, for those of use who are London MPs, will have been raised by our constituents. It is important that we work constantly until and throughout the games to ensure that any difficulties faced by Londoners and residents of other parts of the country that are hosting Olympic events are kept to an absolute minimum.
	First, we need to make sure that even better information is provided about the ORN plans, remembering that an announcement made 18 months before the games must be repeated at very regular intervals right up until the games. Otherwise, people do not feel that they have been properly informed and will not understand how they have to reorganise their journeys and so forth, and that is not good enough. One of the lessons from the test events was the importance of not just telling people
	but telling them again and again in a spirit of support for minimising the disruption that they face. We must therefore review the effectiveness of the information strategy.
	The Olympic Delivery Authority and Transport for London have done a really excellent job in consultation on the route, but that process, as the Minister will remember, has gone on for a very long time. There is a difference between mere consultation and information that enables people to manage their lives. Londoners and those from other parts of the country living on or near the ORN will at times undoubtedly face quite serious levels of disruption. Through distributing clear information widely and early, the Government and the Greater London authority can help all those affected to prepare, and not to get too angry but to feel that they were duly warned.
	Businesses will not be able to receive deliveries in normal hours. Postal and refuse collection services for residents will be disrupted. Taxi and private hire drivers may face long delays and loss of custom. Local residents and businesses need clear and detailed information in as many different forms and languages as possible so that they can plan for the period when the Olympic lanes will be in operation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will take all necessary steps to review the quality of information and perhaps do a bit of testing of how widely the impact of the ORN is understood?

Lyn Brown: One of the issues that has been raised with me by residents is how long this Olympic lane is going to be in place—100 days, which far exceeds the duration of the Olympic games and the Paralympic games.

Hugh Robertson: indicated dissent.

Lyn Brown: I am pleased to see the Minister shaking his head. However, the fact that I think, and my residents think, that the lane will be in place for that long is a worry. I agree with my right hon. Friend that information is vital to keeping local residents on board with what is going on, because I get a very small but significant postbag from those who are already complaining about the disruption they are facing and are likely to face.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituents have perhaps had to bear more of the dust and upheaval of the Olympic park construction than anybody else.

Hugh Robertson: But get the new football stadium.

Tessa Jowell: Yes, and we say hooray for the new multi-purpose football stadium in the Olympic park. Hopefully at least some of my hon. Friend’s constituents will think it is worth it. I know that the Minister will want to reply to her point.
	The second matter of concern that people are beginning to raise is the impact of changes to traffic signals, and the fear that they will significantly increase congestion throughout London. I wish briefly to share a reminiscence with the House. When the evaluation committee came, we were all on our very best behaviour, wanting to persuade the International Olympic Committee that London was the place to host the games. I know that
	the Minister was very much part of that evaluation visit. We were coming down Gower street, which is normally an area of considerable congestion leading down to Cambridge circus and Trafalgar square. It normally takes about 20 minutes to get from the top to the bottom. As the bus turned into the top of Gower street, all that I could see, right down to the bottom, were green lights. I feared that that might seem implausible, so I suggested that perhaps we might see one red light on our journey down. The point is that the conditions that the evaluation committee enjoyed will not prevail during the games themselves. I hope that there will be close scrutiny of the impact of changes to traffic signals.
	Will the Minister also undertake to work with the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor of London to ensure that information about traffic signals is made public without further delay? That is necessary for precisely the same reason as my previous request: we need to prepare people for the degree of extra congestion that they may have to navigate around.
	The substantive question on the new clause is whether we can minimise the number of people who will use the Olympic lanes. We know that 97% of those arriving at the Olympic park are expected to arrive by public transport. That is a very good thing, and it will certainly be a lot quicker than getting there by car, except for members of the IOC and athletes. We have to remember that Olympic lanes were specifically designed in the wake of Atlanta to make it easier for athletes to get to the Olympic park or their Olympic venue on time and to prepare properly for their event. We should constantly draw attention to who is eligible to use the Olympic lane, and to the fact that the rest of London will get to the Olympic park on the fantastic new transport in which so much has been invested. I am quite sure that the Minister and Members of all parties will set an example in the form of transport that they choose.
	If there is a sense of two classes of travellers to the Olympic park—those whose journeys are hell and those who glide down the Olympic lanes—we have to anticipate that that will quickly become a source of tension, because London is that type of city. I know that the Minister, who has shown great sensitivity about such issues, will be aware of that, and I hope we will do everything we practically can, consistent with the undertakings that we gave, to mitigate the tension.
	The third point raised by new clause 2 is on pedestrian crossings. The Opposition are asking the Minister to work with the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor of London to look again at this issue. The latest projection—the Minister may want to correct this—is that more than 60 pedestrian crossings will be closed for months on some of the busiest roads. Although we understand the need for rapid transport between venues, it is important that we do not compromise road safety. In addition, we cannot have a situation in which significant parts of London are effectively divided in half, with residents unable to cross roads.
	The fourth point in the new clause is on taxis and private hire drivers. Will the Minister agree to work with his colleagues, the ODA and the Mayor to examine whether it is feasible for taxis to use the Olympic road network in certain specified areas or at certain specific
	times? This is an important industry in London and the views of taxi drivers are important in shaping the reaction of visitors.

Don Foster: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that getting taxi drivers in London on our side is crucial in the campaign for wider public support, but before she moves on to her fifth point, will she explain a little the language she has chosen to use? She is basically proposing that appropriate taxis should be able use the Olympic route network in appropriate circumstances, but what does she have in mind?

Tessa Jowell: The language is flexible, because how greater flexibility is delivered is an operational matter for the ODA and Transport for London. A number of possibilities are covered. It might include access to the Olympic lanes for taxis early in the morning or late at night, when their use for Olympic transport is not at its maximum, or use could be restricted to black cabs—we would want to avoid suddenly having a whole lot of operators claiming to be taxis and therefore eligibility to use the Olympic lanes. Those are two examples of greater flexibility, and we would be grateful if the Minister, with the ODA and TfL, could examine them.

Lyn Brown: In respect of local businesses within Newham, I would be remiss if I did not say that if taxi cabs were allowed to use the Olympic route, registered minicab firms in the borough, which will need to find a way to profit from the games, may also wish to be considered. Should the Minister choose to look at the matter in the round, he could give greater consideration to the use of the Olympic lanes by private hire cars.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend’s representation. However, the three or four points that I have made underline the complexity of the matter. That is why the new clause is drafted in general terms. I do not feel that the Opposition are in a position to be prescriptive, but we are inviting the Minister to engage in discussion. He is as aware as I am of the tension arising from this matter. One of the great joys of being a regular broadcaster on London’s Biggest Conversation, which has an enormous listening audience of taxi drivers, is that I get the red meat from them—feelings are very strong. We would not be doing our proper duty if we did not respond to that, demonstrate that we have done so, and used our best endeavours.

Bob Blackman: One of the matters that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned, but which is mentioned in the new clause, is consultation. The whole of the Greater London area is mentioned in connection with the potential consultation. I suspect, however, that as we get closer to the games, lots and lots of people in the area will have something to say and that we could end up with death by consultation. We could be overwhelmed. Will she clarify, therefore, exactly what she means by consultation, what form it would take and when it would happen? If she intends to press the new clause to a vote, some of us on the Government Benches might be sympathetic, but we would need further details.

Tessa Jowell: Perhaps uncharacteristically in this place, we do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, subject obviously to the Minister providing satisfactory
	assurances on the points raised. The most important thing is that he raises them with the relevant authorities and that we find a solution to the growing concerns of Londoners about the prospect Olympic lanes. This is but one example of very many that we will face in the weeks—47 now, I think—before the games. We have to be vigilant and focused on helping the relationship between the huge festival that is the Olympics and the daily lives and convenience of Londoners and London businesses.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have—fairly briefly—made clear our concerns, which are reflected by Members who represent London constituencies on both sides of the House. I have had some helpful discussions with the Minister, and I am sure that we will listen eagerly to this reply.

Christopher Chope: It gives me great pleasure to support the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). She said that she was not going to push the matter to a vote, but she might change her mind when she hears what has happened in my constituency over the so-called consultation—or lack of—on part of the Olympic network.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, as was indicated by Madam Deputy Speaker earlier, I tabled a series of amendments and new clauses that, owing to a glitch, did not appear on the Order Paper, but which reflected the spirit of the right hon. Lady’s new clause. One of my amendments would have required that no road closure or restriction be operated outside the London Olympics period as defined in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. I tabled that amendment because we, in my constituency, are concerned about the disruption that will be caused to local residents and businesses well before the games start by the execution of improvement works at the Canford Bottom roundabout.
	The right hon. Lady and others will recall that we discussed this matter on Second Reading on 28 April. I make no apology for returning to the subject today, however, because on that occasion I said that clause 4 would be helpful because it would enable the authorities to impose restrictions on side roads and local authority roads, thereby avoiding the need for the Canford Bottom improvements to be pushed through in defiance of local public opinion before the Olympics. That is how it was left on Second Reading.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and I then went to see the Minister with responsibility for roads, who was extremely helpful and accommodating, and said that there must be a proper public meeting and public exhibitions of the proposals, which was not what the Highways Agency originally proposed. Unfortunately, the exhibitions and the public meeting did not take place until the last week or two of July. What concerned my hon. Friend and me at the public meeting was that even at that late stage the Highways Agency had not produced the data about the impact of the closures and the works on local people and local businesses. That meeting took place after the House had gone into recess, but to give due credit to the Minister, he intervened and said that he would not allow the contract for the works to be let straight away, because it was important that the data, which had been promised for months if not years, should be made available to my hon. Friend and me and to the local highways authority.
	Two weeks later we got a letter saying that the data were now available—they had been put up on some website. Unfortunately, that same day, before the data had been examined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole or me, or by the other people to whom it had been sent, we were told that the Minister was going to authorise the letting of the contract because he needed to be able to deliver the Olympic route. Under the terms of the Bill, it would not be necessary for him to have those works carried out at the Canford Bottom roundabout in advance of the Olympics, because he would have the power to restrict the local roads at the time and thereby compensate for any other traffic jams that might arise. We therefore faced a situation where the Minister, by his own admission, was contradicting what he had told my hon. Friend and me when we went to see him, namely that the issue of the improvements to the Canford Bottom roundabout was totally separate and apart from the London Olympics route network. It has now become apparent that the Olympic authorities are dictating the terms of the process and riding roughshod over local public opinion. They are also ignoring the representations made by the local highways authority, in so far as it has received sufficient information to enable it to make such representations.
	This is a very serious issue. Many Members might not be familiar with the Canford Bottom junction, but it is on the main A31 trunk road where the road changes from being a dual carriageway going west, and it is subject to significant congestion and delay, particularly at peak times. It seems that it is the purpose of the Highways Agency and the Olympic Delivery Authority to ensure that the A31 runs fine, but in so doing to ignore the needs of the other users of that roundabout. When I say that more than 60,000 vehicles a day use that roundabout, I hope that that puts the situation into context for hon. Members. We are not talking about some local roundabout; a roundabout taking more than 60,000 vehicles a day is an extremely busy roundabout. Indeed, it may surprise Members to know that at peak times, two thirds of the vehicles using the roundabout are not using the A31 in both directions, but are using the minor roads going off the roundabout. That means that at peak hours in the morning, when 4,500 vehicles an hour use the roundabout, some 3,000 of them are using the local roads—that is, they are either coming in from one of the four local roads or egressing along one.
	What is going to happen to those vehicles? The Highways Agency and the Olympic Delivery Authority are now saying that in order to construct the hamburger junction, which will involve more than 70 traffic lights—[Interruption.] I knew that my reference to the hamburgers would get the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) excited again, as it did on a previous occasion.

Don Foster: For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman will well recall that I asked him to give a definition of a hamburger junction on the last time he raised it. I fully understand, as will all Members, what a hamburger junction is, so we do not need it repeated today.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. I cannot remember whether you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair last time, but in the course of the discussion the right hon.
	Gentleman was guilty of making some rather poor-quality jokes about whether or not hamburgers were going to be sponsored in the Olympics and so forth.
	This hamburger junction construction is a really significant issue. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is now in the Chamber. He will, I hope, come down and visit this part of the network. If he does so, he will realise the implications of the prospect of total closure of all the side roads off that junction, day after day during five weeks when all four sections will be closed off. That will mean that in the peak hours, 3,000 vehicles an hour that use that junction now will not be able to use it. The consequences in terms of disruption to local businesses and local residents are absolutely beyond comprehension.
	Last week, there was an incident on the road between West Parley and Longham—one of the side roads that leads ultimately into the Canford Bottom roundabout—as a result of which that road was closed. The traffic chaos, which extended well into the Bournemouth conurbation and had repercussions as far away as Poole, was enormous. There was a great deal of local anger, yet that was a closure that lasted only a few hours. What we are talking about now is a closure for 12 continuous weeks.
	If this were happening in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have done exactly the same as me—raise the matter with the local highways authority. I put the point that if we can keep the main parts of the roundabout for the A31 running during working hours, why cannot we allow the side roads to operate—at least during peak periods or during the working day. The highways authority, Dorset county council, told me that it had been presented by the Highways Agency with some 10 different options for the construction of this hamburger junction. Those options ranged from closing off all the roads completely for 24 or 48 hours and doing the construction quickly, thereby minimising the expense and duration of the works but maximising the disruption to all traffic to, at the other extreme, closing none of the roads at peak times, with the works taking longer and perhaps costing a bit more.
	As a result of the pressure of the ODA and the imperative to get this junction improved before the Olympic games—as I say, it is unnecessary, but it has now apparently been imposed on the roads Minister by his counterpart, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics—local businesses and local residents will suffer an enormous amount of disruption. In my submission, that is not consistent with the avowed intent of the Government, as expressed in paragraph 84 of the Bill’s explanatory notes, according to which:
	“The Government’s aims in providing for, and enforcing, traffic restrictions required for the 2012 Games”
	are
	“to minimise the impact of the 2012 Games on local businesses and residents going about their everyday business.”
	I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for roads, that those words ring extremely hollow in the Christchurch constituency, and in the neighbouring constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I am sure that, in due course, when the residents of the Poole constituency, as well as the constituencies of Bournemouth East,
	Bournemouth West and North Dorset, realise the disruption that will be caused, the clamour for something to be done will become even greater.
	In my view, prevention is better than cure, and it is not too late for the Government to intervene. They could say either that the construction works should not be carried out until after the London Olympics, or that they should be carried out using a different method that would enable the local traffic to flow, especially during peak periods. The consequences of the total closures to which I have referred will be completely disproportionate.
	I have no doubt that if local people had known in advance about the data, which were supplied by the Highways Agency at the insistence of my hon. Friend the Minister only in the middle of August, there would have been uproar. They would have said that the plans were intolerable. Indeed, local businesses were not told about the proposed closures until the middle of August. They have now been told by EnterpriseMouchel, which works for the Highways Agency, that there will be road closures for 12 weeks from the middle of February 2012 until the beginning of May. That obviously includes the Easter period. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is looking at me with incredulity at the prospect of major roads being closed for that length of time.
	It is impossible to over-emphasise the gravity of the situation. I do not think that the Highways Agency or the Olympic Delivery Authority have any notion of the anger that is going to be generated when people see what is happening on the ground and realise that there was, and still is, an alternative. This is not like when a motorway has to be closed following a fatal accident, which is an act of God—or perhaps not. We know that this is going to happen, and we ought to be able to plan for it and bring in the necessary traffic management measures to ensure minimum disruption to the local traffic. However, because of the imperative of getting the work done before the Olympics, local businesses and residents are going to be put through an enormous amount of inconvenience.
	I cannot even get an answer on whether it will be possible for pedestrians to cross from one side of the junction to the other during the course of the works. A detour of perhaps four or five miles will be required for motorists, through congested urban conditions. That will add hours to people’s journeys and do immense economic damage to the locality. When we discussed this on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister said that that was the first he had heard of the problem. I hope that he will now look into the matter again. His Bill enables him to say that the works should be half-completed or curtailed before the Olympics. They do not have to be finished until after the games, and if that is the price of enabling local people to go about their normal lives without disruption, so be it.
	Another point relates to the substance of whether the junction improvements are valid. Only when we obtained the data did the position become clear. Although the Highways Agency and others had asserted that everyone would be better off when the improvements had been completed, it was clear from the small print that, even during peak hours, vehicles coming off the eastern part of Wimborne Road West would experience greater delays
	than they do at present, and that the same would apply to Wimborne Road West in the evening and Ham lane in the morning.
	As for off-peak periods—and, of course, much of the day is off-peak, given that the peaks are defined as two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening—it is clear that, contrary to all the assertions, delays on the local roads will increase. That too was not made clear during the consultation, and the Highways Agency—perhaps in the knowledge that the consequences of declaring openly what was going to happen would be adverse to it—did not communicate the effects to local people. This is a serious example of the need for consultation with the local highways authority, but either there was no such consultation or, if it did take place, the highways authority has not been listened to.
	When I raised the matter with the traffic manager at Dorset county council’s environmental directorate, he told me that the proposals considered with the Highways Agency included 10 different options for dealing with the traffic. The issues that they took into account were disruption to the network, buildability, and value for money. I asked what the county council thought, and at that stage it became rather difficult to engage with it. I asked a specific question: did the council believe that the proposals to block access and egress from all four local roads for such a long period was reasonable, or did it place a disproportionate burden on local residents and businesses? I also asked it to look at the 10 possible scenarios, but I am sorry to say that I did not receive a very clear answer from the highways authority. I am not sure whether its members had really got their heads around the gravity of what is proposed. The area contains many major businesses, including aerospace manufacturing, and those businesses—not to mention people going about their own ordinary daily business—will be greatly inconvenienced.
	If my amendments had been printed and selected, it would have been possible for the Bill to include the commitment made by the Minister earlier and repeated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead—who is responsible for road traffic—that the disruption to local businesses and residents would be minimised. It is clear from what has happened so far in relation to the A31 and the Canford Bottom improvements that that commitment is not being fulfilled.
	I hope that the Minister will relent between now and the beginning of the disruption that is due to start in February. As was established on the last occasion when we discussed the matter, any competitors or officials wanting to go to the Weymouth site will need to be there in good time. They will not want to risk a delay to their journey at the Canford Bottom roundabout, which, in any case, is probably a good hour and a half’s drive from the Olympics venue. Officials and media people may want to bear that in mind.
	I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is now in her place, and I hope she will join in the debate, in order to emphasise that this is not a party political matter, but rather a constituency matter of the highest order. We do not have the luxury of having any motorways in Dorset, and we do not have many trunk roads either, but we expect those that we do
	have to be managed and dealt with in a way that is much more friendly towards the needs of the local people than seems to be the case at present.
	I said I would not speak at length and I have resisted quoting from much of the extensive correspondence I have had with the Minister and officials. I hope this debate—and, perhaps, the protests that will follow if the Government do not relent on the proposed 12-week closures—will bring home to them the fact that local people take this issue very seriously.

Annette Brooke: I endorse the points that are being made. The Olympic games are a wonderful opportunity for this country, but the impact on our area is beginning to be very considerable, and some of it is causing a great deal of resentment and fear among local businesses. In respect of these road works, due consideration must be given to our local economy and the way of life of local people.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and her support for our line; we have been operating on this issue together. We have been in the dark for quite a lot of the time, but we have worked hard to try to cast some light on the issue.
	There is much talk about the Olympic legacy, and perhaps the Minister will refer to that in his summing up. I fear, however, that the Olympic legacy in my constituency will be people saying, “The Canford Bottom roundabout should have had a proper improvement, but instead a half-baked hamburger junction has been incorporated that will not on any view solve the long-term traffic problems. That was the price that had to be paid for the Olympics.”
	I think it is too high a price, and it is also an unnecessary price, because there could have been a little more consultation and rational thought about this matter. We could have delayed the improvements until after the Olympics and thus ensured that they would deliver real benefits to local road users, as well as to national road users using the important A31 network.

Mike Freer: I rise to make a few brief remarks on new clause 2. I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voices calling for yet more consultation as we near the Olympic period. While the Opposition will not press their amendments to a vote, I fear that the Minister might choose to acknowledge their sentiments and take on board what they propose.
	I am not generally a great fan of Transport for London, but I have to say that its consultation on the Olympic network has been exemplary. Phase 1 addresses the A12 Leytonstone to Redbridge roundabout. Although it is not in my constituency, it is an important London junction, and TfL has written to every resident and business within a certain distance, informing them of all the changes and proposals. It has also held three drop-in sessions, and that procedure has been repeated for every phase.

Lyn Brown: I represent the constituency in which the Olympic park is based, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a small but very significant postbag from residents who are not aware of things that are happening on their doorsteps and that affect their everyday lives, such as whether or not they can go down certain roads,
	which roads are closed and how much noise, inconvenience and dust will be created. Although I hear him saying on behalf of his constituents that the good people of Finchley are not in need of further information and consultation, the good people of Newham would be very grateful to be kept properly informed of everything that will happen over the next year and more that will affect their quality of life.

Mike Freer: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I cannot comment on the ability of her constituents to absorb information, nor on the ability of mine to do so. What I am saying is that this new clause is unnecessary. It is not for primary legislation to dictate to Transport for London or the ODA exactly how and when they should consult. They are consulting on the major phases extensively and, unusually, TfL is doing that quite well. Members of the public and Members of this House may feel strongly about the consultation, but the consultation for phase 1 in central London is still open, and it will remain open for another week. All I am saying about this new clause is that the Minister needs to be careful not to burden the ODA with a raft of consultation and information requests that are ill-defined and will, at some point, allow people to say—

Lyn Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Freer: No, I am just making a general point about the quality of consultation on the priority route networks.
	Under Mayor Johnson, TfL has been exemplary on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made a powerful case about consultation, and perhaps we should extend the purview of Mayor Johnson to Christchurch, as that might improve the level of consultation on my hon. Friend’s local council.

Christopher Chope: My point is not about the lack of consultation by the local council; it is about the lack of involvement of the Highways Agency.

Mike Freer: I stand corrected. My general point is that the new clause, whether or not it is pressed to a vote, asks the Minister to take on board a raft of additional consultations. It asks us to consult and inform ad nauseam, yet it is ill-defined.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Mike Freer: I have already said that I am not going to give way further on this, as I am making a general point. The Minister needs to be careful not to burden the ODA and the relevant authorities with ill-defined requests, ad nauseam, for information. Thus far, TfL has been exemplary and the Mayor of London has done an excellent job, and I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voices.

Hugh Robertson: With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, and with the permission of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), I shall deal with Canford Bottom roundabout first and then return to her new clause.

Stephen Pound: Bottom up then, is it?

Hugh Robertson: It is actually the military principle of securing one’s rear before one advances. There will be an unfortunate double entendre, if we are not careful.
	It is a well-defined principle of the Olympics, or it certainly has been in the 15 or 16 months of our work on the Olympics, that issues lie where they fall. Thus, despite the fact that my Department—the one that the right hon. Lady presided over before the election—has primary responsibility for the delivery of the Olympics, where detailed issues arise they lie with the Department that is primarily responsible for them. So anything to do with the management of overseas dignitaries lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, anything to do with Olympic security lies primarily with the Home Office and anything to do with transport lies primarily with the Department for Transport. So I feel a little bit like a duck caught in the shooting gallery this afternoon.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) raised a great number of his concerns on Second Reading, and I undertook then to ensure that they were correctly raised with the Department for Transport. The note that I have been given assures me that that has been the case and, indeed, I believe that in his submission my hon. Friend acknowledged that the roads Minister has been closely involved. I suspect that the problem is that we have simply hit a brick wall, in that my hon. Friend does not want this particular scheme to happen but the roads Minister has given authorisation for it to proceed. There has been agreement that the work can proceed, and I believe that it is due to start imminently. The note that I have received states that the highways authority simply does not believe that there is a viable alternative.
	I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I went to Weymouth to have a look at the test event at the beginning of August, when representatives of Dorset county council and the local authority were present. I did not get the opportunity to get held up at the Canford Bottom roundabout. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be delighted to learn that I set a good example and travelled by train, and so I did not have a chance to see this important roundabout. I must tell my hon. Friend that nobody in and around Weymouth, including Dorset county council, raised this with me as an issue in any way.
	Indeed, if one problem came out of that visit—the regatta itself was brilliantly organised and the local authorities are doing everything that they possibly can to deliver a successful regatta at Olympic time—it was the worry that on the super Sunday in the middle of the games, when Ben Ainslie stands a chance of breaking the record for sailing medals at the Olympics, most of the south-west will decamp to Weymouth, thereby gumming up roads for miles around. It was for precisely that reason that they needed to make improvements to the road network. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the reasons why Weymouth will be a great venue is that it is a fantastic amphitheatre, but the town, which is small and has small roads, has a capacity of about 8,000, I was led to believe. Their concerns are rather the reverse and that we should do everything possible to increase access.
	I simply do not know what more I can do at this point. It is not within my power as the Olympics Minister to halt these works and it never has been.

Christopher Chope: The roads Minister told me that it was not necessary to go ahead with these works prior to the Olympics, but he has effectively told me in a letter that he has now been ordered to go ahead with them because they form part of the Olympic route network. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics can do nothing else today, will he confirm that as far as the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Olympic route network are concerned, it is not necessary to proceed with the Canford Bottom construction and improvements before the Olympic games? The route could be secured using the powers in clause 4.

Hugh Robertson: I shall certainly check that for my hon. Friend and, if he wishes, write to him, but the information that I have in front of me is clear—inasmuch as I can read it—that these improvements are required to deliver the Olympics. It is as simple as that.

Christopher Chope: Why are the improvements required? How will they make a difference? At the moment, my hon. Friend’s powers under clause 4 would enable all the other sides of the roundabout to be closed off, for example. Indeed, local people have said that they would prefer that. They would prefer to have all the roundabout closed off to local traffic during the Olympic games than to have to put up with this disruption and the construction of what seems to be a white elephant project.

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend will know, as he was a Transport Minister in the previous Conservative Government, that what local people want is not always the best traffic solution to achieve what people are trying to do on a national scale. We are committed to an Olympic route network—we will come on to that in a minute—and that was a commitment given at the time of the bid. As the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has said, many of us are nervous about this, but it was a commitment we made when we signed the host nation contract back in 2005, and it is one that we are contractually obliged to deliver. We have taken advice from the experts—in this case, the Highways Agency—and I have a briefing from it among my notes. I have just received a copy of the letter that was written to the right hon. Lady by the Transport Minister. Both the briefing and that letter confirm that these works are necessary and that they will go ahead. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so unhappy about it, but I do not see that there is a great deal that I can do.

Christopher Chope: Of course, my hon. Friend has to answer for the roads Minister, too, because that is the way this debate is going. My hon. Friend the Minister says that these works are necessary, but does he not agree that if we apply common sense we can see that it is possible to construct such a major new junction without closing the local roads for 11 weeks continuously?

Hugh Robertson: The short answer is that I simply do not know, because I have not seen this roundabout. I am an amateur, not a traffic professional, and I think that even if I went there and had a look, I would not necessarily be sure that I would get it right. That is why we have agencies such as the Highways Agency to give us advice. That advice has been examined and tested by my hon. Friend the roads Minister, and he has written
	accordingly. I am afraid that I have no option—and would not take any other up—than to accept his judgment and advice. I am afraid that that is where we are. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does not like it, but I am afraid that that is the way it is going to happen.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has overruled the roads Minister in insisting that this project go ahead?

Hugh Robertson: No; absolutely not. I have not overruled the roads Minister in any way. I do not have that power, which does not exist.

Annette Brooke: Does the Olympic Delivery Authority have the power to instruct the Minister to give the go-ahead to the road?

Hugh Robertson: I would have to check the requirements of the Act. The ability to set out an Olympic route network was laid out in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and I were involved in passing five years ago. As the right hon. Lady has said, the power was introduced because there was complete traffic chaos at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, in which competitors missed their events and officials failed to turn up at the right time because the city became gridlocked. That has been a feature of every Olympics since.
	It is a requirement of the host nation contract to have an Olympic route network between all the key venues. That was given statutory effect in the 2006 Act, so the measure will almost certainly have its origin in that Act. There is a process of consultation between the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Highways Agency about how these things are to be enacted. According to the evidence before me today—the briefing that I have been given—that consultation has been done and a conclusion has been reached. I am very sorry that the two local Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke)—do not like it, but it is one of those simple situations where there is a difference of opinion between local Members of Parliament and those trying to design the scheme. Given that the roads Minister has considered all this, having had countless meetings, and come to a conclusion, I do not see much point in prolonging this further because the decision has been made. The only advice that I can give to those Members if they wish to pursue this further is to do so with the roads Minister via an Adjournment debate.
	On the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, let me say at the outset that I entirely appreciate that the thought process lying behind it involves trying to minimise the impact of the Olympic route network on people living and working in the areas concerned. I am very grateful for her confirmation that she supports the general principle. All of us who have been involved in this process, either at the time of the bid or subsequently, recognise why this has to happen, but none of us is enormously enthusiastic
	about it, because we know exactly what the impact will be. However, it is a necessary safety measure to ensure that the London games are not afflicted by the sort of scenes we saw in Atlanta, with competitors missing the start of their competitions and officials not being able to get there to oversee them.
	The importance of this issue was brought home to me at the weekend, when I visited the rowing squad out in Slovenia during the world rowing championships. It is very easy for us to minimise how important these events are to the athletes—the young men and women who are competing for us—but in many cases they have given up other careers and put themselves through an almost monastic existence for the four years running up to events. We owe it to them to make sure that this moment in their lives is as well-organised as possible.
	Before I address the four points that the right hon. Lady made, let me pick up the point that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made about the operation of the Olympic route network. I categorically assure her, on the record, that the network will not operate for 100 days—it absolutely will not. It is expected to operate for a couple of days in the lead-up to the games and for a short period after they finish to allow for the arrival and departure of athletes. It then will not operate between the Olympics and the Paralympics, and then the same thing will happen again. The horror stories about 100 days of chaos are very wide of the mark.

Lyn Brown: I welcome the Minister’s answer very much, but the figure of 100 days is in the ether, so to speak. A constituent wrote to me about this matter, quoting the ODA website. That is at the back of my mind, although as I stand here I do not have access to the letter, and certainly do not have access to the ODA website. I would be grateful if the Minister’s aides considered looking at the website to see how my constituents might have misread the information that they saw in front of them.

Hugh Robertson: I expect, without knowing, that the hon. Lady’s constituents misread the information, because in some quarters it is being presented very badly. That is not a criticism of the ODA, although we will certainly look at what she says, but there is a certain amount of mischief making in all this. Many people who write and commentate on the games know that the measure will be extremely unpopular and unwelcome in some quarters, and are making the most of it. A lot of the 100-day scare stories come from that, which is partly why I am happy to put the record straight today.

Bob Blackman: Londoners in general are concerned that we might witness the horrible spectacle of queues of traffic sitting in proper lanes while International Olympic Committee officials are whisked past them in rapid-fire lanes at times when people are not going to the Olympics but are going about their normal, law-abiding business. We can all agree that in the area around the Olympic park there will be a lot of publicity and, therefore, understanding, but in the wider area of London there will be less understanding and less appreciation. Will the Minister assure us that he is doing everything possible to minimise not only the number of days, but the times when the Olympic lanes will operate, so that the inconvenience to Londoners is minimised?

Hugh Robertson: Indeed, my hon. Friend can have that guarantee from me. There can be no better guarantee than the fact that, whatever we signed in the host nation contract, we all know that these measures have the capacity to cause considerable annoyance and irritation at a time when we would like the whole country to come together to celebrate a London Olympics, with the possible exception of the residents in and around the Canford Bottom roundabout.
	We are determined to ensure that we operate the network with the minimum possible disruption to London residents. It will operate for only a couple of days before the games and a couple of days after to facilitate entry and exit to the city. It will operate during the games themselves only when the competition schedule is in place.
	The final thing that is worth saying is that the Olympic route network occupies only a tiny proportion of the London network. I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that we will do everything possible to ensure that the effect is as small as possible, commensurate with keeping to the obligations to the IOC that we undertook in signing the host nation contract back in 2005.
	Let me run through the four points made by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I agree that communication is vital and that this is not a question of one, straightforward leaflet drop. As we know, there are all sorts of reasons why such a thing could go adrift. The process has to be constant and ongoing—probably rather like a point in politics: only when one is heartily sick of hearing it is there any chance of its getting through. I agree that it is vital that we not only go through the consultation process, which we are doing at the moment, but back it up, back it up and back it up.
	If it would reassure the right hon. Lady, and in keeping with the agreements we have over the scope of the project, I am happy to arrange for her to have a briefing from Transport for London, which I presume she sees as part of her shadow ministerial responsibilities, and from the Department.

Don Foster: To offer further reassurance, will the Minister tell the House whether I am correct in my belief that many aspects of the Olympic route network will require traffic regulation orders to be passed, and that passing a traffic regulation order requires consultation with the local public—an additional level of consultation?

Hugh Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, had I read the speech that was prepared for me, I would have covered that point—I decided instead to try to be clever and go al fresco across the right hon. Lady’s contribution.
	The right hon. Lady’s second point was about encouraging everyone to travel by public transport. It was made clear in a powerful part of the bid we put in to the IOC that these were to be a public transport games. As she will know, as a Minister I always travel by public transport and certainly will in the run-up to the games. Indeed, even now public transport is by far the quickest way to get to Stratford. I managed to travel from the west end to Stratford international station in 18 minutes the other night. Slowly but surely that point is getting through in Lausanne. I had some discussions
	on that when I attended the world rowing championships. The IOC members probably form a spectrum in that regard; many will use public transport, but some will probably take some more persuading. We will do everything we can to encourage them to use public transport.
	A consultation on pedestrian crossings is going on at the moment. The detailed plans on changes to pedestrian crossings are being adjusted wherever possible in the light of representations that have been received. It is our intention to ensure that there is minimum disruption, not that a “safety first” approach is carried out. I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that that will be done.
	The right hon. Lady’s final point was on taxis, and the Mayor said yesterday that he was looking at that very carefully. We are seeing what can be done at one end of the spectrum, by creating pick-up and drop-off points along the Olympic route network that will allow taxis to operate more efficiently. Information packs are already being prepared that will cover the ORN venues and other details about the games. They will be distributed to drivers to help them to operate as efficiently as possible and make the most of the commercial opportunities that will be available to them through the games.

Lyn Brown: I am once again grateful to the Minister for his point about black cabs, but I emphasise the point about private hire cars from local businesses around the Olympic site—certainly those that operate with a licence and are of good repute.

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Lady makes the point well. The best thing I can do is offer her a guarantee that I will bring her remarks to the attention of the Mayor. It might be sensible for her to write to him as well, but I can certainly give her that assurance.

Clive Efford: I have often resisted intervening on issues relating to the London taxi industry, but on this occasion I cannot. It is the only fleet of transport vehicles in London that is fully accessible to disabled people. It is an essential part of making it easy for people with disabilities to get to the Olympic site. When the Minister is discussing that with the Mayor, would he please emphasise that point and perhaps allow those vehicles carrying people with a blue badge or some form of identification that shows they are registered disabled to enter the Olympic priority network?

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is a point well made. As he knows, it is international Paralympic day today—there is not always a direct correlation with the term and I know that people do not always like it. One of the commitments made at the time of the bid was to make this the most disabled-enabled games ever. This country, of course, is the home of the Paralympic movement. It is absolutely our intention to do everything possible to make the experience for disabled people attending both the Olympic and Paralympic games as easy and pleasurable as possible. The hon. Gentleman’s point about the London taxi fleet was well made. I agree with him entirely and will certainly raise it with the Mayor.
	I will finish by thanking the right hon. Lady not only for her new clause, but for the spirit with which she tabled it. I absolutely agree with the thinking behind it.
	Indeed, had we been having this debate 19 months ago I would probably have done exactly what she has done today.
	I hope that in my remarks I have been able to reassure the right hon. Lady that we will do everything possible. As I have said, certainly in the House, not least because all Members receive constituency postbags, we are all aware of the potential for the situation to cause very considerable unease, anger and disappointment at games time. We gave a commitment at the time of the bid, and we must carry it out, but it is absolutely vital that it is carried out in a common-sense and, dare I say it, minimalistic way, so that the impact on an already very busy and congested city is kept as small as possible. I hope that with that reassurance she will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw her new clause.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the Minister for his constructive response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave,  withdrawn .

New Clause 3
	  
	Police resources

‘(1) Section 6 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert—
	“(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) shall include a request from the Authority that the Commissioner or relevant chief constable provide an estimate of the number of police officers required to be deployed in order that the Olympic Delivery Authority may effectively exercise its duties under subsection (1).”’.—(Tessa Jowell.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The security operation for the games will be the largest peacetime security operation ever mounted in the UK, and it will place tremendous demands not only on the Metropolitan police, but on all police forces, as officers will be drawn from forces throughout the country. Of the 330,000 police shifts that are likely to take place during the games, about 70,000 are likely to be covered by officers from outside London.
	In the wake of the disturbances that swept across London—when, similarly, we had officers from outside London supporting the Met—and other parts of the country, we have learned not just how important the number of police can be, but how vulnerable parts of the country and, indeed, of our city can be when there are simply not enough police on the street.
	By the time the games come to London, London and national police forces will be significantly diminished. The Government’s gamble with police cuts means that there will be fewer police on the streets, putting the security operation and other police functions at risk.
	By March 2012, the Metropolitan police will have 940 fewer officers than it had two years before, and throughout the country two thirds of the budget reductions will have taken place by the run-up to the games, meaning that there will be as many as 10,000 fewer officers available.
	The Police Federation has raised concerns that forces outside London are struggling to find the finance and the man-and woman-power to send officers to the capital, and that could heap further pressure on an already stretched Met.
	In the light of last month’s events, what reassurances can the Minister give the House that the Met police force will be able to cope not just with the Olympic security operation, but with any public order disturbances that may come its way? Can he assure the House that police forces outside London will also have sufficient numbers to offer support to the Met police operation and to respond to disturbances that might occur at the same time in their own area?
	If the Minister cannot with confidence give those assurances, will he undertake to meet ministerial colleagues to review policing capacity and capability in order to ensure that there is a sufficient number of police officers to fulfil the extensive commitments of summer 2012, remembering that the Olympics are preceded by the celebration of the Queen’s diamond jubilee?
	The most important task of any Government is to ensure the safety of the people whom they serve, and next year presents an unprecedented security challenge, one that will have been made significantly harder by having fewer police on the streets of London. I ask the Minister to reassure not just the House but London that the security strategy, which enjoys cross-party support, can be delivered even with that reduced capability.

Stephen Pound: I do not want to tempt the Minister too far away from the core subject, the wording, the irrefragable basis of this marvellous, exquisitely crafted new clause. However, he is well known for being a man of great charm, decency and keenness to accommodate all views in the House—a characteristic that will almost certainly guarantee that he does not become Prime Minister for a few years, but that he will have a great many friends.
	The point that concerns me very much on the issue of policing was raised in reference to the Olympics on the Floor of the House on Monday in connection with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. I understand that we are not talking about TPIMs, but the Olympics. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has raised the issue of police numbers and the potential shortfall.
	As every right hon. and hon. Member in the House will know, the abandonment of the relocation principle was voted through the House on Monday night, although I have to say that all Opposition Members voted to maintain public safety and relocation. One consequence is that some of the most dangerous and potentially lethal terrorists in this country will be allowed to return to their home areas, which will often be in the heartlands of the Olympics. As we heard on Monday night, that will require enhanced police activity and oversight. Whereas under the relocation principle such people could be relocated away from their homes, they will now return to areas where they know people, in many cases where they were brought up, and where they have friends and family.
	Understandably, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) did not go into a great
	deal of detail on Monday, but he did point out that there would have to be deeply enhanced police oversight. Whether that will be provided in any force other than the Met, we do not know. Logic suggests that it will have to be done by the Met. The Met is the only force that can draw down this sort of specialist oversight operation. If that happens, the demand from that draw-down on police officers from January and February next year, right the way through the diamond jubilee and the Olympics, will become intensely significant.
	It is not the purpose of this debate to rehash all the TPIMs arguments. However, it is a shame that the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is not in his place—he was here earlier—because on Monday, he pointed out that, having come to the issue completely open-mindedly, he could not understand why any Government would not wish to have this vital tool in their armoury. However, on the occasion the vote was lost. I ask the Minister whether he will speak to his colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice specifically about the additional police numbers that will be required to oversee the operation of TPIMs in east London in particular and in the whole of the M25 area.
	The Minister has military experience. He is the sort of young officer whom many of us would follow into the jaws of death itself. I imagine him on the bridge of some storm-tossed corvette, heading straight into the roaring sound of gunfire, while we plucky matelots gather astern to support him. On this occasion, I would like to see him lead the good ship of state into the safe haven of public security and away from the threat and danger that may be attendant upon east London, the Olympic area, the Olympic dream and the Olympic ideal.

Hugh Robertson: Follow that! I should probably confess that the only time I ever went into the heat of battle on the back of a vehicle was in a tank with the lid firmly screwed down, so there is rather less chance of that than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
	I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points in a minute, but may I start by saying that I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for tabling the new clause? As she is absolutely aware, having had this responsibility herself, the safety and security of games venues, the supporting infrastructure and the wider public environment next summer is a paramount priority for the Government and for everybody involved in the Olympic games movement. I should certainly, at the outset, place on the record my gratitude for the work that she did during her time in office to ensure that the security plan is in the position that it is today. I am happy to say to this House, as I have said outside, that I am as confident as one can be at this stage that we can deliver a safe and secure games.
	In response to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), I point out that we had the opportunity in Committee to question the assistant commissioner who is responsible for policing and security around London 2012. As I think we all agreed, he was probably the standout witness we saw. He was extremely persuasive and, as one would expect, well informed. There is no
	doubt that the fact that the security plan, operationally, is in such a good place is largely due to the work that he and others have done. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no question, either formally or informally, of the Metropolitan police raising the sort of concerns that he has just raised with me. In as much as it counts, I hope that he will accept that reassurance.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I should like to place on the record—perhaps this will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—the fact that I too have the utmost confidence in Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, who was not only an expert witness but gave every one of us who questioned him real confidence that he takes these concerns deeply seriously and also has the ability, the competence and the skills to ensure that the solutions are delivered.

Hugh Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that.

Stephen Pound: I apologise for intervening again; this is not ping-pong. That is not even an Olympic sport; if it were, it would be called whiff-whaff, I am sure. I take second place to no man in my admiration for AC Allison, but the point is that he was talking about the situation then. Since Monday night, the rules have changed and everything is different. We now have the potential for the body to be infected by a virulent bacillus. Even Lord Carlile, who is not of my party, has said that these are potentially lethally dangerous people. The weather has changed, and we have to take that into consideration, despite the admiration that everyone in this House has for AC Allison.

Hugh Robertson: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, the events of Monday night did not suddenly come out of a puff of smoke. The police have had the opportunity to prepare for this, and they also have the ability, through their intelligence services, to look forward. On that basis, I can reassure him that neither formally nor informally, at any stage, has anybody in the Metropolitan police service raised this with me as a potential problem.

Lyn Brown: I thank the Minister for his good words, which go some way towards helping us to feel more secure. However, will he take back and ask directly the question about whether the relocation issues are now of concern to the Metropolitan police with the forthcoming Olympic games ahead of us?

Hugh Robertson: I will certainly go back and ask the question. I am not sure that this will necessarily reassure the hon. Lady, but I would be absolutely amazed if I were the first person who had asked it. It is absolutely inconceivable that it was not asked by the Home Office during the preparation of the Bill. This has been a long time in the cooking, and there would have been ample opportunity for the Metropolitan police to say, at any stage during the process, that this was a problem.

Stephen Pound: This will be the last time that I seek to intervene on the Minister. I entirely take his point. However, DAC Osborne, a person of similar standing
	who is the co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, said in evidence to this House that relocation is by far the most effective mechanism. The Met is therefore considering it, and for the one person the Minister prays in aid, we can pray in aid a DAC who says quite the opposite.

Hugh Robertson: At the risk of splitting hairs, I am not sure that there is a contradiction here. Whatever the DAC may or may not have said about what place he sees for relocation in the tools available to him, the fact is that it has gone now, post Monday night. The police have known that it was going for some time before this—and crucially, knowing that it was going, nobody has said that that will present us with an insuperable problem, or in my case, any form of problem, around London 2012.

Bob Blackman: One of the concerns expressed to me by individuals in the Metropolitan police is that since the London riots, in many London boroughs the police have been continuously working 12-hour shifts, with no rest days and no allowance for annual leave. That is at the current operational policing level. Given that the Olympics are coming up, will the Minister verify the position with the Met? My understanding is that it is cancelling all annual leave for the duration of the Olympics and gearing up for a similar operation during that time, and that will put great strain on the resources available to it not only in the Olympic areas but across London. That must give rise to a potential security problem.

Hugh Robertson: I say to my hon. Friend that we should be careful, because I would be very nervous about saying anything that suggested that there was in any way, shape or form a security problem around London 2012. The messages that we give out here are followed in places beyond here, so one could get into quite dangerous territory. I am not without experience in this area—I spent just over 10 years in the armed services and know how to read a security briefing—and I say again that given the nature of the subject that we are dealing with, I am as confident as I possibly can be at this stage, 10 months out from the Olympics, that we can deliver a safe and secure games. Inherent in that is the necessity of striking a balance between keeping this city and those games secure and recognising that they will be a fantastic public spectacle that we want people to be able to move in and out of and enjoy to the maximum extent.
	I will come to the precise police numbers required to police London 2012 in a moment, but the Metropolitan police have been involved at every stage of the planning and are confident, as I am, that the plan is deliverable and that the result will be a safe and secure games.

Bob Blackman: I think we can be confident about the security level of the games. Having inspected the park and the security arrangements, I think we will deliver a superb games. One of the concerns of Londoners, however, is the potential for criminals and others to promote their activities in the time leading up to and during the games, which could affect the police’s operational capability in London in that period. Has that been taken into account?

Hugh Robertson: The short answer to my hon. Friend is that it has absolutely been taken into account. As I said, I will come on to the police numbers in a moment, which I hope will give him some reassurance, but I can give him further reassurance. He took part in the debate on Second Reading and has been closely involved throughout the Bill’s passage, so he will be aware that one clause in the Bill is the specific result of police intelligence and a request from the police. The maximum fine for ticket touting has been increased on the basis of intelligence received from Operation Podium. There is a constant process of updating legislation as required.
	New clause 3 would require relevant police authorities, in such consultations with them as the Olympic Delivery Authority considered appropriate, to provide an estimate of the police deployments required to enable the ODA to fulfil its responsibilities under section 6(1) of the 2006 Act. I would say two things about the new clause. First, there have been and continue to be extensive discussions between all concerned parties—the police, the Home Office, the ODA, the Department, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and a great many others—on planned police deployments at London 2012 venues.
	The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will also be aware, most practically because she has done this job, that as under the previous Administration the Government have pursued a policy of maximum transparency in communicating the look and feel of the safety and security of the London 2012 games. That includes public statements from the police on the expected requirement for policing the games, which at current estimates is up to 9,000 officers in London and 12,000 nationally on the peak days during the Olympic games. Naturally, those numbers will be flexed up or down as necessary in response to changes in intelligence and the threat environment.
	The second point is much more technical—I am slightly more nervous about making it, and I hope the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will take it in the way that it is meant. The proposed purpose of new clause 3 is out of step with the transfer of a wide range of games-time responsibilities, including security, from the ODA to LOCOG. At the Olympic park, that handover will be complete in January, so there is a technical problem with new clause 3, because by the time the measure has ground through the other place, it is likely that in any event, the security responsibility will largely have been handed over. In practical terms, if the new clause becomes part of the Bill, it would have either a very short shelf life or possibly no shelf life.
	Accordingly and in conclusion, I once again thank the right hon. Lady for all the work that she did in government in drawing up the original security plan. I absolutely reassure her and other hon. Members that keeping the games safe and secure remains the Government’s overriding priority. A lot of things are important in and around the games, but security is the No. 1 priority.
	I offer the right hon. Lady the opportunity to raise those and other concerns with Home Office officials as part of her routine briefings on the subject, as I did in respect of her previous proposal. As we discussed at Question Time this morning, I am aware that she has a meeting next week. If anything comes out of that that she feels has not been addressed satisfactorily, I hope
	she knows that she can come back to me, and I will do everything possible to ensure that she gets the right answer. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade her to withdraw the clause.

Tessa Jowell: With those very helpful assurances, and on the basis that the House will want to keep these matters under review between now and the end of the games, which will be a year tomorrow, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	  
	Removal of infringing articles

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 2, in clause 1, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 21 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (offence of contravening advertising regulations), omit subsection (4).’.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 2.

Hugh Robertson: I think everybody will be relieved to know that these are two minor and very technical amendments—I see nods all around the Chamber at that.
	Amendment 1 repeals a redundant provision in the 2006 Act. Section 21(4) provides that a person convicted of contravening the advertising regulations may be ordered to pay the ODA’s or the police’s reasonable enforcement expenses. The provision is redundant, because other sections of the Act—sections 22(9) and 28(7)—already allow the ODA and the police to recover their enforcement costs from people who contravene the advertising and trading regulations.
	Amendment 2 amends the advertising and trading provisions as they apply in Scotland, so that they remain largely as operated by the 2006 Act but more closely follow the model of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act 2008. The amendment has been requested by the Scottish Government, who consulted the police and prosecuting authorities in Scotland.
	Although the amendments will result in a small and technical variation in the operation of the advertising and trading provisions in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales, they are not likely to cause significant differences in practice. Indeed, I hope that all hon. Members recognise that Scotland’s legal system is different from the one in England and Wales.
	Amendment 1 agreed to.
	Amendment made: 2,page6,line15, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert—
	‘(9) In section 37 of that Act (Scotland), omit—
	(a) subsection (6), and
	(b) subsection (11).
	(10) At the end of that section insert—
	“(12) In section 22, subsection (6) has effect as if there were substituted for it—
	(6) An article that is held by a constable (having been removed by or delivered to the constable) shall be returned when retention is no longer justified by a matter specified in subsection (5)(a) to (c), unless—
	(a) in the case of a perishable article, the article has ceased to be usable for trade, or
	(b) the court orders the article to be forfeited under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.
	(6A) Subject to subsection (6), the article shall be treated as if acquired by the constable in the course of the investigation of an offence.
	(6B) An article that is held by an enforcement officer (having been removed by or delivered to the officer) shall be dealt with in accordance with sections 31A to 31E.”
	(13) In section 28, subsection (4) has effect as if there were substituted for it—
	“(4) An article that is held by a constable (having been removed by or delivered to the constable) shall be returned when retention is no longer justified by a matter specified in subsection (2)(a) to (c), unless—
	(a) in the case of a perishable article, the article has ceased to be usable for trade, or
	(b) the court orders the article to be forfeited under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.
	(4A) Subject to subsection (4), the article shall be treated as if acquired by the constable in the course of the investigation of an offence.
	(4B) An article that is held by an enforcement officer (having been removed by or delivered to the officer) shall be dealt with in accordance with sections 31A to 31E.”
	(14) In sections 31A, 31B and 31D, the references to a magistrates’ court are to be read as if they were references to the sheriff.
	(15) Section 31A has effect as if—
	(a) in subsection (4), “before the end of the relevant period” and “at the end of that period” were omitted,
	(b) in subsections (5) and (6), “before the end of the relevant period” were omitted,
	(c) in subsection (6), in paragraph (b), for “section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000” there were substituted “Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995”,
	(d) in that subsection, paragraph (c) were omitted,
	(e) in subsection (8), “or (6)(c)” were omitted, and
	(f) subsection (10) were omitted.
	(16) Section 31E has effect as if subsections (5) to (10) were omitted.”’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Clause 9
	  
	Commencement and duration, extent and application, and short title

Amendments made: 3,page14,line34, in clause 9, leave out ‘8’ and insert ‘[Goods vehicle operator licences]’.
	Amendment 4,page15,line1, leave out ‘and 2’ and insert—
	‘, 2 and [Goods vehicle operator licences]’.—(Hugh Robertson.)
	Third Reading

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I wish to start—I mean this genuinely—by thanking all those involved in the passage of the Bill. I thank Members on both sides of the House who served in the Bill Committee. It has been a reasonably pain-free Bill, and the discussions that we had in Committee were constructive and genuinely improved the Bill. I would therefore like to put on the record my thanks to all Members who played a part in that.
	I say a particular thank you to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who has played a unique role, as I have said on a number of occasions, in the winning of the London games and their subsequent delivery. She continues to be a great servant of the process—if she does not mind my using that term—through her work on the Olympic Board and across London promoting the games. It would have been easy for lesser people following the general election to have felt that they were not involved in the way in which they wished and to have left the process. It is greatly to her credit, as a person and a politician, that not only has she not done that, but she has put her shoulder to the wheel so enthusiastically. She has made a great many friends by doing that—she had a great many already—and earned the gratitude of many people on both sides of the House and across the Olympic movement.
	I also thank, as always, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster)—the third of the holy trinity involved in the process from the beginning—for his help and support. Finally, I thank the officials of the House, the parliamentary counsel and the officials in all three Departments concerned. Although there is cross-party support for the principle of the Olympics, a lot of difficult, technical issues are involved in laying on the world’s greatest sporting event, and it is not always easy for officials to bring it all together. Throughout this process—I am sure that the right hon. Lady would say the same about the 2006 Act—we have been extraordinarily well served by our officials. I am grateful to them for their work.

Jo Johnson: I thank the Minister for his kind words of thanks to the Bill Committee members. It was the first Bill Committee of which I have been a member, and I enjoyed it very much. He has alluded to the technical difficulties that officials must confront, and I want to bring to his attention a set of technical difficulties relating to the sharing out of media accreditations to the British media. It is a cause of great concern to me that local media, particularly in London—the city on whose good will the success of these games depends—are being shut out. Will he join me in calling on the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to look closely at the decision by the British Olympic Association to deny media accreditation to such fine local London papers as the News Shopper?

Hugh Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks from a powerful position, not only as a London Member of Parliament, but as a former journalist. As he is aware, responsibility for the accreditation of local media outlets lies with the BOA. In the short time between now and his raising this with me in the Lobby during the previous vote, I have checked the current position. I suspected that accreditation is massively over-subscribed, which is what he indicated to me. That said, I understand the logic of giving as many passes as possible to the international media and national news outlets, but he is right that it has to be balanced with local media outlets, many of which have been extraordinarily supportive of the games and on whose doorstep they are taking place. There is a possible second channel for non-accredited media, and considerable provision is being made for those who cannot get formally accredited. The Mayor of London has done an enormous
	amount to help that take place. The best thing that I can do now is to give my hon. Friend a promise to write to the BOA about the matter. I will particularly investigate the position regarding London media, because this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I will come back to him with an answer.

Gavin Barwell: I want to second the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). The BOA seems to assume that local journalists granted accreditation will attend every event. Obviously, there is a limit on overall capacity, but clearly our local papers just want to cover the events in which athletes from our boroughs are competing. It ought to be possible to arrive at a flexible arrangement that enables our local London papers to do that. I would be grateful if the Minister were to take that point on board.

Hugh Robertson: Suffice to say that the point has been well made. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I will give him the same undertaking that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson)—that I will write to the BOA to take that precise point up and see what I can do. The only minor caveat is that because this is a London games, the demand for media accreditation spots is vast. There will be a level of public interest that I do not think we have remotely started to get our minds around. Spots will be tight, but I will absolutely do all that I can.

Lyn Brown: Let me assure the Minister that there is cross-party support for the points made by the hon. Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I know that the Newham Recorder will be watching Christine Ohuruogu with interest as she races towards the tape in the final for her gold. It would be a great pity if the local press were not allowed to be there to cover such an event. As local newspapers, they frankly do not have the capacity to attend every event and would have to be clear and specific about the events that they could give time to.

Hugh Robertson: As always with this process and, indeed, protest in this case, the cross-party support is evident, and I shall reflect that in the letter that I write to the BOA.
	As I set out on Second Reading back in April, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 gives us the overarching legislative framework needed to deliver the games successfully. This Bill simply provides a number of technical refinements to the 2006 Act, ensuring that we can address the few minor and technical issues that have arisen as games-time planning and preparation have become increasingly sophisticated. The general principle behind the Bill remains the same as in the original 2006 Act, which is to deliver a great games.
	The Bill amends the 2006 Act by giving the ODA the power to store articles that have been seized for contravention of the advertising and trading regulations, subject to a number of carefully framed rules set out in the Bill, and we are freeing up police resources so that they can be focused where best needed. As we have heard today, we have also sought to ensure that the process works equally well across the different policing regimes in England and Wales, and in Scotland. The
	provisions that we are passing today will also allow us in exceptional circumstances—and only in exceptional circumstances—to alter advertising and trading regulations more quickly.
	We have also increased the maximum penalty for the touting of games tickets from £5,000, as set out in the 2006 Act, to £20,000 on the specific advice of the police. We believe that that strikes the right balance. The traffic management provisions in the Bill will ensure that the transport plans covering the Olympic route network and the areas around games venues can be delivered and effectively enforced. I also confirm that I have clarified the role of the Mayor of London when it comes to agreeing penalty charge levels for Olympic-purpose road traffic contraventions. Last week, I formally directed the ODA to consult relevant traffic authorities—in as far as it has not already done so—on the penalty charge levels for Olympic contraventions, and in doing so have sought to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in Committee.
	The final group of provisions that we are enacting addresses the concerns expressed by Transport for London about the relaxation of licence conditions for operating centres. That said, the key point that has come through in every stage of the Bill’s progress is the way in which these measures will be applied. I confirm to the House today that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to take a proportional and reasonable response to the enforcement of all the powers contained in the Bill.
	In conclusion, it is fitting that today’s debate coincides with international Paralympics day, which takes place in Trafalgar square—we may just be able to catch it. This is the first time that the event has ever been hosted outside Germany, although we have a great tradition of pioneering Paralympic sport in this country, dating back to the original Stoke Mandeville games in 1948. Today’s event in Trafalgar square will give the public a great introduction to the 20 Paralympic sports, with demonstrations from elite athletes. As I said earlier, I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will show their support for this fantastic event.
	Every time the United Kingdom has hosted the Olympics, we have left the Olympic movement stronger than we found it. That is not just something that it is easy for Ministers to say; if one looks back at the history, one will see that it is genuinely the case. The original bid that we put before the International Olympic Committee promised to deliver a deep legacy for the games. This will be the first Olympics where we plan the event and the legacy as one.
	Right across the country, in many different schools and communities, much is happening. The east end of London is being transformed and social change is being delivered through volunteer programmes and Olympic-themed community projects—a promise that we made to the country and the world back in 2005. Being in the middle of delivering a show like this, it is sometimes easy to concentrate on things that do not go as well they could, but there is a huge amount for this House and this country to be proud of as we begin the final run-up to these games.
	I firmly believe that this Bill gives us the powers to proceed on a strong legislative footing—one that I do not think has been equalled in any previous games—and
	I would particularly like to thank this House for the role it has played in what I believe will be a truly great and, I hope, outstanding Olympic games.

Tessa Jowell: I begin by expressing our strong support for the Bill and, very particularly, our gratitude to the Minister for his handling of it with characteristic open-mindedness, receptiveness and a sense of the shared passion that comes from involvement in this incredible project. This is a technical Bill that builds on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, but it has done much more than that. I believe that it is has been enriched and shaped by our consideration in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It has been enriched by something important—the fact that we are all representatives of the communities that we serve. We might come from different political standpoints, but we share a belief in the power of communities to act for good, and we have a shared ambition for the people whom we represent. I believe that the proposals on advertising and trading standards in the 2006 Act will be implemented, because we know and understand, as representatives, the importance of proportionality.
	We have seen an increase in the maximum penalty for ticket touting, which is very much an expression of the fairness that is a prerequisite for people across London and across the country to feel that they are part of this great Olympic event. I think that all Labour Members—we seem to be rather diminished, but we count the quality for the purposes of a debate like this one—are grateful to the Minister for his response to the points we raised today about the Olympic route network. He reflected his understanding, as did other hon. Members, because we are all representatives of the people whom we serve.
	This is a staging post on a journey that will see many major hurdles needing to be negotiated before we get to the closing ceremony of the Paralympic games in a year’s time. What the Olympics reflects, in a rather unique way, is a choice that the Government made. It is choice between remaining in the comfort zone by staying away from controversy, difficulty, bad headlines and all the risks that the Olympic games can bring or rising to a once-in-a-lifetime challenge—even though that is a rather over-worked phrase.
	I feel extraordinarily proud to have been involved in different ways throughout the whole process, and the Minister, too, has been involved for most of that process. I am grateful for the way in which the Government have taken over the responsibility for this greatly cherished project and have continued the tradition of openness and collaboration.
	We have all been privileged to work with some of the best people in the world, who have delivered under the leadership of John Armitt, David Higgins, Dennis Hone and Godric Smith. All those outstanding people have seen the Olympic park transformed from a contaminated wasteland with corrugated iron huts into the largest urban park to be created in Europe for 150 years. The fact that this has been delivered a bit below budget and a bit ahead of time is a really wonderful advertisement for UK plc. Everyone who has taken part in that can be proud of their achievement to date, including the people who cleared the ground, the people who carried out the demolition and the people who ensured that 99% of the resulting materials were recycled rather than going to
	landfill. Every one of the 40,000 people involved, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and other Members here today, can be proud of those achievements.
	It has always been our ambition that the Olympic games should be about more than 60 days of Olympic and, in particular, Paralympic sport. The focus has been on the legacy, and we can now see it out there in Stratford. Many of us will go to the opening of the Westfield shopping centre, which will bring desperately needed jobs and inward investment to that area. It will begin to change the economy and the prospects of the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent the six Olympic boroughs.
	We can also see the legacy in the wonderful venues that will provide state-of-the-art competition venues and facilities for the local community for decades to come. Less visible is what we hope will be the other part of the legacy: communities that are more optimistic and ambitious about their future and that have a greater belief in the possibility of their own achievement. In the long run, the Olympic Park Legacy Company will have an important job in safeguarding the structural legacy and ensuring the commercial investment, both of which will deliver opportunities for local people in those boroughs, whose experience must be measured as part of all this.
	In our own ways, we are all inspired by the 2,000 young athletes who are now training hard for 2012. There are 2,000 of them, because not all the teams have yet been selected, and a large pool is being drawn from. Their dedication, their ambition and their willingness to get up at all hours, make the journey and focus their lives on the possibility that they might just make it into the 2012 team should be an inspiration to us all.
	This project has been beyond party politics. All of us who have been involved in it have been privileged to hold that responsibility as guardians for the nation. I am enormously grateful for the generosity of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Mayor in including me and my party in the planning for the games. We can be confident that that cross-party tradition has been very well continued. It is now only a matter of months before the games kick off and, although that might not provide such unalloyed pleasure as the conclusion of today’s debate, we are all up for it.
	As the Minister has said, today is international Paralympic day, and until 8 pm there will be a series of demonstrations in Trafalgar square involving Paralympians and young would-be Paralympic athletes. One of the Paralympians said to me this morning “Just remember, when people talk about the Olympics, we mean that it is the test event for the Paralympics.” Let us make sure that we go and give the Paralympics all the support that they deserve.

Don Foster: I am conscious that many Members are anxious to get to Trafalgar square, so I shall be very brief.
	This is in danger of becoming a cross-party love-in. I entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) when she praised the Minister and the Secretary of State, and I also agreed with the Minister when he praised the right hon. Lady. We have done the same on a number of occasions, and it has been justified.
	Above all, the right hon. Lady can be proud of having genuinely ensured that the debate was beyond party politics from the outset. As a result, there has been detailed consultation across the parties in both Houses, and many of the tensions that could have arisen have not done so. That has enabled the bodies which we have given the task of building the stage and putting on the show—the ODA and LOCOG—to get on with the job, and, as the right hon. Lady said, to do it phenomenally well, delivering below budget and ahead of time.
	I am absolutely convinced that, in less than a year’s time, this country will put on the most fantastic sporting and cultural extravaganza that there has ever been, and what is so good about the Bill is that it has provided yet another opportunity for parliamentarians in both Houses to engage with that exciting prospect. I hope that, in a few final remarks, the Minister will remind all parliamentarians that there is still a great deal that they can do to help to ensure that we deliver something else that is critically important: not just a fantastic extravaganza, but a legacy for businesses, tourism, education and culture as well as a legacy for sport.
	When the Minister discusses press accreditation with his colleagues, he may wish to talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know has concerns about accreditation for Scottish newspapers. He could also remind people that newspapers seeking accreditation can do themselves a lot of favours by promoting activities relating to the Olympics and Paralympics in their local areas. I know that the British Olympic Association is looking at the amount of coverage of local activities in particular newspapers, and I think that more could be done in that regard.
	I believe that we will deliver not only a great extravaganza and the legacy of which we have spoken in this country, but something that is never, or at least hardly ever, mentioned in our debates: a legacy for other countries. One of the important elements of our bid was the overseas work that we proposed to do. It is amazing to read the statistics showing how many people have been able to train as coaches in other countries, and how many young people throughout the world have been able to engage in sport, because of the Olympics that will take place here.
	I am delighted that we have had an opportunity to debate the Olympics and Paralympics yet again. I am also delighted that this country’s Paralympic team is training in my constituency, where two weeks ago I saw some fantastic young people doing amazing things. My only regret is that goalball—which has become my favourite Paralympic sport—will not be demonstrated in Trafalgar square tonight, but I encourage any Member who has never seen it or heard of it to have a look at it. It will be the top best-seller when the tickets go on sale, as indeed they have just done.

Mark Field: As the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) pointed out, there is a danger of this debate—and, indeed, other similar debates—becoming a bit of a love-in. In the 10 years that I have been in this House, I have always been a great believer that Members must work together with other Members. My constituency neighbours have tended not to be from my political
	party, but I have worked closely with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on a range of issues. However, I always have some concerns when there is a little too much consensus in this House on particular issues, not least because the very essence of politics should be choice. In the current debate, it is important that certain aspects of the scepticism felt by many millions of Britons outside this House are also put on the record.
	As the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) will remember, I shadowed her when she was Minister for London in 2004, before we got the Olympics on 6 July 2005, and I was somewhat sceptical about the benefits that the Olympics were expected to bring to our city. Since then, there has been a tumultuous change in the global economic outlook, which has only served to reinforce some of my concerns, especially in respect of the escalating costs of this project. In advance of our getting the Olympics, we were told it would cost about £2.5 billion. That sum has now risen to some £9 billion. In light of those particular statistics, some of the boasts that have been made about working within budget are, in my view, somewhat hollow.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman might like to refer to the Hansard of May 2005, where I made it absolutely clear that, were we to win the games, the budget to build the venues in the park that had been submitted as part of the bid book would have to be revisited. We did increase the budget, because our ambition for regeneration was much greater after we won the games. Some 75p in every £1 spent on building the park was spent on regeneration. The site would have been contaminated waste land in perpetuity had we not won the games. We have accelerated regeneration. In six years, we have done what would otherwise have taken 60 years. That has brought benefit to London. It has brought jobs to London and has been good for the economy of London, way beyond just having 60 days of Olympic and Paralympic sport.

Mark Field: As a courtesy to the right hon. Lady, I will obviously look at the Hansard for that time, but there is no doubt that this was sold on a very different financial basis, and it will cost not only the general taxpayer, but the London council tax payer, a significant sum of money for some decades to come.
	I share the widespread view that the Olympics are a great opportunity to showcase the city that I love—I am very proud to represent the heart of the city—and that they will be a spectacular success. Both the Olympics and the Paralympics shortly afterwards will be a wonderful show. I do have concerns about the issue of the legacy, however, and I suspect that similar debates to that which we are currently having were held in the Greek Parliament in advance of the Athens games in 2004, the Australian Parliament in advance of the 2000 games, and other Parliaments and Federal buildings before other Olympiads took place.
	We all know that it is very easy to have great ideas about the legacy going forward. I am well aware of that; I walked through the site where the Olympics will take place before we even won the bid, and I recognised that
	there were tremendous opportunities for regeneration. I am concerned, however, about whether we will be able to sell that legacy and whether it will be achieved in the way that we have in mind. We will not know that when we look back in the third week of September next year; we will not know the answer until 2020 and beyond. I therefore hope we in this House continue to address the possible prospect of our having a white elephant of a site out in east London. That would be a crying shame not just because of the amount of money being spent on it, but because of the opportunities that might be missed.
	I hope that we will ensure that this debate does not end today and that we will not draw a line under things after the Olympics have finished. It will be incumbent on all London Members of Parliament to hold future Administrations very much to account to ensure that that proper legacy, which is the raison d’être for holding the Olympics in London, is put in place.

Hugh Robertson: May I give my hon. Friend some reassurance on this point, because it is very dangerous if the idea he alludes to is allowed to take root? There is absolutely no chance of our being left with white elephants on the park after the Olympic games. The single biggest frustration in my life at the moment is that two London premier league football clubs and one in a lower league are competing to take over the stadiums after the games. That represents an entirely different situation from those in Beijing, Athens and Sydney. The aquatics centre, wonderfully designed by Zaha Hadid, will provide an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a part of London that has simply never had one before. We have just concluded an amazing deal, at more than half a billion pounds, to sell off the private sector part of the athletes village. The public sector part has already been sold to Triathlon Homes. The velodrome, probably the most iconic building on the park—we did not spot that at the beginning—will become a new home for British cycling, which is one of our most successful sports.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand that the Minister wants to get his points on the record, but we have to be careful here. He is making an intervention, not a speech.

Hugh Robertson: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I offended you, and I absolutely take the point you make. I shall simply say that the broadcast media centre is out for contract at the moment and there is fantastic interest. We have the largest new urban park in Europe and a half-a-billion-pound shopping centre. This is a pretty convincing package.

Mark Field: I accept that it is a convincing package. The Minister will be aware of what happened in my constituency with the somewhat missed opportunity of the redevelopment at Paddington basin. A huge amount of work has not resulted in a great success; it has not been the iconic place to live and work that it might have been. I therefore hope that all hon. Members will recognise that the end of the Paralympics is the beginning of the story. Making a great success of the legacy will be in everyone’s interests, not least of those in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), given where it is located, and of people who live in the constituencies directly affected.

Clive Efford: I was a Greenwich councillor when we first had the idea to redevelop the local peninsula, which eventually led to the building of the Greenwich dome. Without these iconic projects and without public money—people often forget that we got a lot of investment from Europe to decontaminate the site at north Greenwich—it is sometimes impossible to regenerate very expensive contaminated sites. However, once we take the brave decision, as we did in east London and in Greenwich, the regeneration takes place, and we now have one of the most iconic entertainment centres in Europe.

Mark Field: I accept that, although in many ways the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There was a sense in the immediate aftermath of 1 January 2000 that that area was going to be a white elephant and it was the private sector, in the form of the group belonging to Philip Anschutz, which had the vision to drive that area forward that made a difference. But it took some years for that to fall into place, which is why we need to keep an eagle eye on exactly what happens on the Olympic site from next September to ensure that 2013, 2014 and 2015 are not wasted years. They need to be years when we ensure the continued improvement of that site to make it an attractive place to live and work, and, potentially, an entertainment destination site well beyond that for West Ham United fans. One hopes that it will also be used for other athletics events and perhaps as a large-scale entertainment site, given the transport links in place.
	I wish briefly to discuss the elements of the Bill that have been debated, about which I have expressed some of my reservations. We have had a useful debate about policing. This is a matter for not only the Metropolitan police, but the intelligences services, which are playing a huge role in this field and will continue to do so. One should not underestimate that in the context of the security implications of these Olympics. Equally, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, we could learn from elements of previous London Olympiads, particularly the 1948 games—the austerity Olympics. We are living in a time of greater austerity and one hopes that some of those lessons for a cost-effective games can also be learned.
	I have publicly expressed my concerns about some of the issues to do with the large number of people who will be transported from the hotels in Park lane in my constituency to the Olympic village and the fundamental
	impact that that will have on traffic during late July and August next year. One accepts that for Heads of State and leading individuals there are, of course, security implications and they will need to be ferried in such a way, but it seems that many thousands of people will be getting this sort of treatment—a whole lot of hangers-on in the IOC and the sponsors. I would like to see the Minister playing a role in trying to pare down that number to the basic minimum that takes account of security implications.

Stephen Pound: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 1948 games may have been the austerity games, but people were able to find their own amusement in those days? The fact that my parents clearly did so—I was born in the middle of them—shows that life may have been austere, but there was a little bit of fun to be had in Fulham.

Mark Field: If the hon. Gentleman was born in the middle of those games, it says something about the gestation period in that part of SW6 during 1948.
	I did not want to be overly negative, but as Members of this House we have a platform and, according to anecdotal evidence, at least, a lot of Londoners are increasingly rather lukewarm about this Olympiad in spite of the relentless publicity and propaganda being put out by the BBC, as the preferred broadcaster, and by the ODA, and it is important that those issues are put on the record. None of us wishes not to have a highly successful games. We signed up for them and it is right that we should make them a great success, but given the austerity period in which we are living, I do not think that every last i and t of the contract we signed with the IOC needs necessarily to be adhered to exactly. We potentially need discussions slightly to renegotiate elements of it, particularly the rather lavish hospitality package for quite a few individuals coming to the city, especially if they are going to disrupt the day-to-day life of those living here.
	I, like everyone else, wish the games to be a great success. It is good when we can work together on such a basis, but it should not crowd out the idea that concerns about the games are being expressed by many Londoners and many people outside London. Let us make sure that we make them a spectacular success and focus on the legacy for the decades to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SENTENCING (CAMERON ROSS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Iain Wright: I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for going out of his way to grant me this important debate, and I would be grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could convey my thanks to him.
	This case has had significant repercussions for the family of the victim, Mr Daryl Stevens, and particularly his mother, Mrs Jacqueline Stevens, who has worked tirelessly on Daryl’s behalf to secure justice for her son.
	On a wider point, in the aftermath of the riots last month, the issues of sentencing policy, the consistency of sentencing and confidence among the general public in sentencing decisions have attracted considerable debate. I fully appreciate the notion that politicians make the law, police enforce the law and judges interpret the law. I also understand the inherent risks in politicians passing opinion on whether a sentence is too harsh or too lenient. However, it is entirely reasonable for this House to express its views on sentencing and as a Member of the House I am determined to represent the concerns of my constituent.
	Before I mention the specifics of the case, I want to outline the theory and principle behind the concept of undue leniency. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General is a man of considerable legal distinction and he is far more aware than I am of the concept of an unduly lenient sentence, which is a sentence that is not strong enough for the seriousness and circumstances of the crime that has been committed. When someone has been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, the judge decides what sentence they should serve. In some cases, if interested parties, whether that is the Crown Prosecution Service or, in the case of my constituent Mr Stevens, his mother, think that the sentence is not severe enough, they can contact the Attorney-General to ask him to consider referring the case to the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the day after sentencing. If he decides to refer the case, it is then for the Court of Appeal to decide whether the sentence is unduly lenient.
	Let me refer to the specifics of the case. My constituent, Mr Daryl Stevens, was 17 years old at the time of the attack. He was attacked by Cameron Ross with a broken bottle on 22 April 2011. Ross had been drinking prior to the attack, which appeared to be unprovoked, and at his trial he could provide little explanation for why he had attacked Mr Stevens. Ross had been released on licence but had breached this licence by being arrested for a serious violent assault, allegedly involving a baseball bat, for which he had been charged. He had then been released on bail despite the obvious breach of the licence. Mrs Stevens is rightly concerned that had Ross’s breach of his licence terms led to an automatic return to prison, he would not have been free on the streets to commit the assault on her son.
	During the attack, a bottle was smashed into Mr Stevens’ head, the back of his neck and his face. He underwent a four-hour operation in which surgeons removed glass from his body, finding shards and splinters close to his spinal cord. His family were told that he had been millimetres from permanent paralysis or even death.
	Frankly, Daryl Stevens is lucky to be alive today. He was helped by the skills of NHS surgeons, but he is permanently scarred and will have to face the physical and psychological repercussions of the attack for the rest of his life.
	At the trial, Ross pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That is a very serious offence, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Ross was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment—the lowest conceivable sentence for somebody found guilty of this offence. Sentence was passed on 1 June. Mrs Stevens e-mailed me on 6 June to express her concerns about the sentence and the following day I wrote to the Attorney-General outlining the case and asking him to consider referring the case to the Court of Appeal. On 28 June—the last-but-one day on which this could be done—the Solicitor-General replied to me stating that in his opinion the sentence was not unduly lenient. He said that he had looked closely at the range of sentences that the judge could have passed and did not consider that the sentence was outside that range.
	The Solicitor-General also replied to Mrs Stevens on the same day, conveying the same message. His letter to her consisted of five short paragraphs and gave no real explanation as to the reasoning behind the decision not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Mrs Stevens was particularly upset by a line in the opening paragraph of the letter which said:
	“The hours you spent in the hospital waiting for news must have been dreadful but I am sure the trauma of that terrible experience will fade in time”.
	Let me stress that I think the Solicitor-General, who is on the Treasury Front Bench, is a decent and civilised man, and I know that he did not wish to cause Mrs Stevens additional distress. In his subsequent correspondence to me, it is very clear that he was horrified that his comments might have caused offence to my constituent. I raise the comments in the House tonight not to cause embarrassment to the Solicitor-General but to point out to him that the short letter to Mrs Stevens—to the point of callousness and abruptness in her view—and that particular comment, which she felt to be insensitive and patronising, reinforced her view that nobody was listening to her concerns.
	One of Mrs Stevens’ concerns was her belief that crucial medical evidence was not provided to the court during the original trial, or at least was not seen by the judge. In his letter to Mrs Stevens, the Solicitor-General stated:
	“As I am sure you will appreciate the Crown Prosecution Service is in a better position than I am to deal with this issue.”
	In subsequent correspondence to me, the Solicitor-General concluded that CPS staff had met Mrs Stevens to discuss the issue and that she had found the meeting satisfactory, but that is far from being the case. Mrs Stevens told me that the CPS has stated that it is not able to provide answers to many of her questions regarding the medical reports. This has left her feeling that agencies are not talking to one another and that communication with important parties such as the victim’s family in order to answer questions and resolve difficulties are not being given sufficient priority. She also feels that there is little transparency and communication as to how medical records and other evidence are used to come to particular decisions.
	I received a very considered, thoughtful and detailed letter from the Solicitor-General dated 16 August 2011. In that letter, he set out, with commendable thoroughness, details of the case, information that was provided to the judge and consideration in the case of the relevant sentencing guidelines. I found it very helpful that the Solicitor-General outlined in his letter the four sentencing ranges for offences of grievous bodily harm with intent, with the judge and both prosecution and defence counsel all in agreement at the trial that, on the evidence provided, the appropriate range to use was that of four to six years’ custody, with a starting point of five years.
	The letter gave a very clear view of information provided in the court and elements of the Solicitor-General’s thinking as he considered referring the case to the Court of Appeal, but my point is this: why did we not get something similar to that first time round? Why did it take a complaint from Mrs Stevens, channelled through me, and the prospect of this debate in Parliament, to ensure that better communication and some greater transparency in the decision making process occurred?
	Mrs Stevens has felt let down at every stage of the judicial process and I suspect that, given what is in her view a light sentence, nothing would comfort her regarding her wish to see justice being done—that is thoroughly understandable—but I suggest that if she had been involved and if an open dialogue on what was decided had been promoted, the case might not have escalated to this stage.
	Successive Governments have stated that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. With this case in mind, will the Solicitor-General therefore resolve to improve communication with relevant parties, particularly victims and their families, and ensure that, at the earliest possible stage, as much information as possible is provided? I think that that would help to reassure parties such as my constituent and make victims feel that not only should they have their day in court to see justice done, but that they can feel sufficiently important and valued within the system, and can be comfortable as to the decisions that are made.
	I mentioned that it was considered appropriate in this case to use the range of four to six years’ custody, with a starting point of five years. I suspect that, at the very least, a five-year custodial sentence would have allowed Mrs Stevens and her family to believe that justice had been better served. Mrs Stevens has expressed concern to me that the sentence was excessively reduced due to such mitigating circumstances as Ross’s young age—he was 18 at the time of the attack—his status as a notional first-time offender and his early guilty plea. However, there is a case for stating that Ross was an adult, and was able to stand trial as an adult, so therefore age had no real bearing.
	I also understand from Mrs Stevens that Ross did not plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, which could conceivably have been a mitigating factor, but denied the offence when he was arrested, taken to the police station and charged, and changed his plea only at court, during the trial.
	My main concern, however, is the failure to recognise the breach of the licence. I would say to the Solicitor-General in general terms that the public will have no confidence in the judicial system if offenders who have breached the terms of their licence do not have that taken into account during sentencing. It should be a major factor that increases the severity of the sentence.
	Ross had breached the terms of his licence, and had been released on bail after being charged with violent offences. That allowed him to attack Mr Daryl Stevens in such a brutal and life-threatening fashion. Why did the Solicitor-General not take that into account when considering whether to refer the case? Why did he not pay particular attention to the sentencing guideline in relation to this offence, which states that other aggravating factors, which could increase the length of a custodial sentence, would include commission of an offence while under the influence of alcohol, which happened in this case, and—particularly relevant to the case—the fact that the offence was committed while on licence? Why was that not given sufficient regard?
	I reiterate in the strongest possible terms to the Solicitor-General that the public will not have confidence in sentencing if such factors, set out clearly in the guidance, are not seen to be used when passing sentence.
	In the time remaining, I want to raise a general point in relation to the process for considering sentences unduly lenient. I have mentioned that the Attorney-General can take 28 days to consider whether a case should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I suspect that most cases would take up all that period, as files need to be obtained and reviewed, and matters need to be considered properly.
	It does mean, however, that there is little scope for representation. I was hoping to have a meeting with the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to discuss the case and, in particular, the fact that the decision was made and communicated with only one day to spare. I appreciate that there is a tension and trade-off between thoroughness and swiftness, but does the Solicitor-General think that there is any merit in extending this strict 28-day period to ensure that the fullest representation possible can be made from hon. Members as well as interested parties?
	As I stated earlier, Mrs Stevens does not feel that authority has been on her side following her son’s assault. I hope that the Solicitor-General will use the opportunity available to address the points I have raised and help ensure that the horrific experience that Mrs Stevens and Daryl, as well as their family, friends and neighbours, have unfortunately faced will lead to a better and more responsive criminal justice system for victims and their families.

Edward Garnier: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on initiating the debate so that we can discuss these important and highly sensitive issues. He has, very properly, brought his constituents’ concerns to the Floor of the House. In responding, I will say something about my role as Solicitor-General with regard to both unduly lenient sentences in general and this case in particular. He should not be in the least concerned about causing me embarrassment. If embarrassment is warranted, it is his right and duty to embarrass me. I am accountable to Parliament and willingly appear to answer for my role as Solicitor-General. He should have no inhibitions in that regard. Indeed, he should be praised for vigorously pursuing the interests of his constituents—mother and son—with such attention.
	Before I respond to the points the hon. Gentleman has outlined, let me focus on the horrific crime with which we are concerned. As he said, it was an offence
	contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which deals with one of the most serious non-fatal offences of violence on the criminal statute book. There is no doubt that the offence committed against Daryl Stevens last April caused great physical and emotional suffering. The victim and his family live with the consequences of the crime day in, day out, and as the hon. Gentleman has said, the impact on their daily lives has been considerable. Nothing I said or wrote earlier in the summer, either to the hon. Gentleman or to his constituent, was intended to underestimate the impact upon Daryl Stevens or his mother. I do not think it did.
	On the day of the attack, Daryl Stevens, then aged 17, was doing what many young people do: spending time with friends and having a good time. He was in Chicago’s Pizzeria in Hartlepool about to order some food when he was viciously attacked in public by a drunk who glassed him—he struck him several times in the head and neck with a broken glass bottle. The attack caused a 3-cm laceration to the back of his scalp, a 3-cm laceration to his left cheek and a 2-cm penetrating wound to the back of his neck. A fragment of glass, among many others, was found very close to his spinal cord. The culprit, Cameron Ross, was later caught and, after pleading guilty, sentenced to three years’ detention in a young offenders institution. The sentence took into account the timing of his plea and the mitigation advanced on his behalf, to which I shall return.
	Nothing I say today, and nothing I have written to the hon. Gentleman or his constituent, can eradicate the hurt caused by this dreadful offence, but I hope that what I say today will go some way towards clarifying my role in relation to the case and the way the Attorney-General and I exercise our powers on unduly lenient sentences generally. I understand that the senior prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service with responsibility for the case met Mrs Stevens in late July to explain the prosecution process and discuss matters further. My impression was that she left that meeting satisfied, but the hon. Gentleman clearly has a different assessment. Unfortunately, neither of us was at that meeting, but none the less there is an issue that we unfortunately cannot resolve. But, the meeting was held, and at least it indicates a willingness on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service to make sure that victims and families are treated properly following hideous crimes such as this.
	Of course, many people may consider the sentence of three years’ detention to be too low, and other judges might have given a longer sentence while others might not, but sentencing is an independent judicial function, carried out by judges and magistrates within a framework set by this House, for which the Justice Secretary has responsibility within the Government. That framework provides for statutory sentencing guidelines to be issued and followed by the courts, and for sentences for certain offences that the Law Officers consider to be “unduly lenient” to be referred to the Court of Appeal to consider whether they should be increased.
	The offences within the unduly lenient sentence scheme are limited by statute and, unsurprisingly, are the most serious ones, including grievous bodily harm—commonly called GBH—under section 18 of the 1861 Act. We must also refer cases within 28 days of the sentence.
	That is the statutory time limit, and if it is to be extended, it will need the Justice Secretary to amend legislation, but, in my experience and that of my officials, Treasury counsel and the Crown Prosecution Service, that period provides plenty of time for the case to be fully thought about, as it was in this particular instance.
	The Attorney-General and I referred about 100 cases to the Court of Appeal last year. We appear in court ourselves to argue them on occasion, and indeed we have done so on more occasions than our recent predecessors, such is our interest in the matter that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House.
	It is, however, the Court of Appeal—not we as Law Officers—that decides what constitutes “unduly lenient”, and it has stressed on many occasions that increasing a sentence already passed on an offender is an exceptional remedy. Sentences will not be increased unless they are significantly below what the judge should have passed. In the Attorney-General’s reference No. 4 of 1989, the Court of Appeal said:
	“A sentence is unduly lenient, we would hold, where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”.
	As Law Officers, the Attorney-General and I exercise our own discretion in accordance with the way in which the law has been applied by the Court of Appeal. The unduly lenient sentence regime is not simply a general right of appeal against a low sentence or an opportunity for the prosecution to have another bite at the cherry; it is an exceptional remedy for exceptional cases, and when we refer cases to the Court of Appeal, we do so not as political Ministers or politicians, but in our capacity as independent guardians of the public interest.
	There is a further aspect to the unduly lenient sentence regime that I should mention. The Court of Appeal will review the sentence imposed only on the basis of the information available to the sentencing judge in the Crown court at the time. It will not take into account material that might be thought now to provide grounds for a sentence to be increased if it was not available to the sentencing judge at the time of the sentence. In accordance with those principles, I considered whether the sentence imposed on Cameron Ross was unduly lenient, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I concluded that it was not.
	The relevant sentencing guideline—the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guideline on assault and offences against the person—provides four sentences ranges for this particular offence, reflecting different categories of seriousness. The sentencing judge, along with prosecution and defence counsel, considered that the appropriate sentencing range specified by the guidelines was four to six years’ custody, with a starting point after a contested trial of five years, and I agree that that sentencing range was the appropriate one.
	The guidelines state that the types of assault offences that fall within the four to six-year range are as follows:
	“Victim suffered a very serious injury or permanent disfigurement; or Pre-meditated wounding or GBH; or Other wounding or GBH involving the use of a weapon that came to hand at the scene.”
	The offender in this case, Cameron Ross, had previous convictions and committed the offence while on licence. Those were aggravating factors. That said, he was young, being 18 years old at the time of the offence, and that was a factor that took the sentence towards the lower
	end of the sentencing range. In addition to detailing his antecedence, the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service set out the offender’s personal mitigating factors, which the judge took into account. He will also have taken into account defence counsel’s submissions on Ross’s behalf.
	As I wrote in my letter to the hon. Gentleman on 16 August, to which he referred,
	“I understand from the transcript of the sentencing remarks that the judge did have Daryl’s statement and saw photographs of his injuries. In his statement Daryl reports exactly what he was told by doctors at the James Cook hospital. The judge will have been aware that doctors told him that he was lucky to be alive as glass was only one millimetre away from his spine, that the wound in his cheek was through to the bone and had just missed a nerve which may have left him paralysed on one side of his face, and that he would require a further operation to remove glass from his head.”
	I went on to say that I noted from the hon. Gentleman’s letter that Mrs Stevens’s concerns related also to the fact that Cameron Ross had apparently breached his licence before committing the offence against her son, and that she believed that he
	“should have been detained as a result of this earlier breach.”
	The problem is that that issue is about how offenders suspected of a crime should be dealt with by the bailing court and is not a matter for the Court of Appeal, nor for me, through an unduly lenient reference. As I informed the hon. Gentleman, I also understand that Ross had not been convicted of these matters at the time when the sentence that we are concerned with was handed down, so they could not be taken into account.
	Sentencing is an art, not a science. I know that from observing the process as a barrister over the past 35 or 40 years and as a Crown court recorder who, since 1998, has passed a good many sentences. It is the role of the judge to look at the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence and the offender, and to reach a conclusion that reflects the interests of justice in the case as regards the victims, the offender and society generally.
	In this case, the sentencing judge considered that the appropriate sentence after a trial would have been four and a half years. The defendant had pleaded guilty at what the judge considered—not what I considered—to be the earliest available opportunity and so was awarded full credit for doing so via a discount of a third off his sentence, bringing the final figure to three years’ imprisonment. There is another debate to be had about
	what is the proper public policy behind discounts for early pleas, but that is not one that I can enter into today.
	It is not my role as Solicitor-General simply to conclude that a higher sentence could have been imposed or that the sentence was lenient and could have been more severe, and that therefore it must be referred to the Court of Appeal. I have to be persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient—I underline the word “unduly”. In this case, the sentence fell squarely within a proper application of the guidelines and for that reason I did not refer it to the Court of Appeal.
	It is not always appropriate for this House to engage in a detailed discussion of the merits of an individual case, although our criminal justice system is of course as open to public criticism as any other area of public interest. As I said, the hon. Gentleman has quite properly advanced his concerns and those of his constituents about this case. I hope that I have explained the approach that I took and that I take, and that that is of some help to him. I appreciate that his constituent, the victim’s mother, was naturally distressed by what happened to her son and wanted quite properly to be assured that justice was done. However, in my view it would not have been fair to take the case to the Court of Appeal and thereby give her and her son false hope, only for it to be disappointed.
	On the provision of information to Mrs Stevens, I am sorry that she did not get what the hon. Gentleman feels she should have got as quickly as she wanted. It was certainly not my intention to withhold information that ought to have been, and I hoped had been, candidly given to her. If she is still upset, I repeat my apology.
	Towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the point about the breach of licence, and I hope that I have provided an explanation in relation to that.
	I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman has done his duty to his constituents and to this House, and I thank him for doing it. I hope that he will recognise that I, if perhaps with less enthusiasm than he might be prepared to accept, have done mine.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.